Showing posts with label Sight and Sound Top 10. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sight and Sound Top 10. Show all posts

26 January 2009

Vertigo (1958)

d. Alfred Hitchcock / USA / 128 mins.


"We could all tell that this was a very important project for Hitch, and that he was feeling this story very deeply, very personally." - Vertigo screenwriter Sam Taylor.

The Alfred Hitchcock film I have screened more often than any other is Vertigo, his 1958 masterpiece that may be the purest cinematic expression of obsession ever made. It is the film often considered to be not only his greatest, but one of the greatest in all of cinema. Although my personal preferences lie with a thriller released four years prior, I won't argue with either of these accolades. Great films, like all great art, are treasures that affect someone differently with each viewing, films that require and reward your frequent participation but are never a burden to experience; they are great and live on because they have reached some truth-filled corner of our psyche, and never grow old. Vertigo lends itself to multiple viewings, each occasion more rewarding than the previous. From the worn VHS copy loaned to me by my high school art teacher, to the film poster that adorned the walls of my dormitory rooms and apartments through college – that tableau of construction-cone orange, the silhouetted cutouts falling into a white spiral vortex – through film classes and repeated viewings on television, it's been a storm cloud surrounding my brain, always thought-provoking, always complicated, always beautiful in its accomplishment. From periphery to upfront analysis, I'll consider myself lucky if I have Vertigo swirling around in my mind for the rest of my life.

Of Hitchcock's Rear Window, Roger Ebert wrote: "I sometimes fancy that various archetypal situations circled tirelessly in Hitchcock's mind, like whales in a tank at the zoo. " Although the comparison was not done for the purposes of discussing Vertigo, perhaps it should have been. Cinema's most obsessive director regarded the film as one of his most personal, yet what we know about him allows us to know that even without this confession. He was a man of phobias, made impotent by his fears and forces he could not control. What he could control were his movies, all meticulously constructed in his head before cameras even rolled. Hitchcock was most controlling with his actresses, his "blondes" as they became known: Joan Fontaine, whom he tore apart emotionally just so she would give the wrought performance he desired; Ingrid Bergman and Grace Kelly, objects of impossible love; Vera Miles and Tippi Hendrin, whose careers he longed to sculpt.

In Vertigo, the Hitchcock proxy is a retired detective crippled by acrophobia named Scottie, played by James Stewart, recruited by college friend Gavin Elster (Tom Helmore) to track the friend's wife, now feared to be suffering from mental illness. Everything after this point is a feat of supreme narrative dexterity: that the woman (Kim Novak) is not who she says she is, that the plot is an elaborate ruse where Scottie functions solely as a cog and a witness, that love and obsession become stronger than anyone can anticipate, that the hired stand-in impersonating Madeleine could be seen later by Scottie and become subservient in love to his molding of her back into Madeleine. If Rear Window is the director's clearest exploration of voyeurism and the cinema, and The Wrong Man his clearest exploration of the nihilism and the unjustly accused, then Vertigo is the director's closest interpretation of what it means to be, of all things, a director – to arrange the pieces in a complex and satisfying way, to make individuals into who you desire them to be at a seemingly unlimited cost, to project your desires and fears onto a blank canvas.

The atmosphere was different in the making of Vertigo, and it's important to consider how this film many say is Hitchcock's best took a course of development unlike any other Hitchcock picture. Between his first Hollywood release in 1940 and his last release before Vertigo in 1956, Hitchcock produced 21 feature films, at a rate of roughly one film every nine months (like children, one might say). He was a director of great efficiency, which rarely translated to a decrease in quality – not all of his films from that period are great, of course, but the great ones were produced with the same rigorousness that many of the lesser ones were. The time devoted to Vertigo, however, would be different. There is no way to know from sure if the extra time spent on Vertigo equates to a superior motion picture, but we do know it allowed numerous revisions of the script and copious notes from the director to himself that included specific camera movements and plans for what emotions the music should evoke. The extra time came from necessary recuperation after Hitchcock suffered a hernia, and by the time Vertigo began production at the end of September in 1957, more than one year had passed from its intended start date. (Once in better health and awaiting the beginning of filming, the director worked on episodes of Alfred Hitchcock Presents.)

Delays in pre-production came from the process of screenwriting. Early drafts of the Vertigo script are reportedly quite messy – a far cry from the remarkably complex story that unwinds for the audience. (I have lost track of how many times I have seen Vertigo, but still I don't think I understand everything that is going on. Ninety-five to ninety-eight percent, sure, but not everything, and that's exactly the way I like it.) Maxwell Anderson, the playwright who helped pen Hitchcock's most underrated film, The Wrong Man, wrote the first treatment of Vertigo, and that treatment, according to scholar Dan Auiler, was reportedly awful. Long-time Hitchcock friend Angus MacPhail helped after Anderson, but quit the project citing an inability to be particularly imaginative. (MacPhail's is one major contribution, according to scholar Bill Krohn, may be in developing the film's introductory rooftop chase). The two men who ultimately shared screenwriting credit are Alec Coppel and Sam Taylor. Coppel came recommended from his regular work on Alfred Hitchcock Presents, and the version of the script he inherited shows Hitchcock had his most meticulous in terms of planning: "four typed notes about key matters such as the opening rooftop chase, and dictated a list of twenty-three sequences he already had in his head" (per Krohn). Coppel left amicably and Taylor, a playwright, came in to add depth and dimension.

Vertigo became a passionate love of the Cahiers crowd in the 1960s, and the reason not only has to do with the brilliant auteurism of Hitchcock but the direct invocation of French cinema. Biographer Patrick McGilligan notes The Wrong Man exists almost as a cinematic conversation between Hitchcock and the Italian neo-realists, and Vertigo – based on the French novel D'entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac and set in Paris and Marseilles during World War II – has a similar conversation with the slower, methodical, character-driven work from France. (As he, Coppel, and Taylor worked on the script, Hitchcock reportedly screened Henri-Georges Clouzot's Les Diaboliques numerous times.) The film's reputation has grown steadily since its 1958 premiere, and today it is the film that duels with Citizen Kane for the top spot in the revered Sight & Sound poll, only five votes short in the most recent survey. Hitchcock, whose feelings on a film were always remarkable transparent even at the time, was quite serious about Vertigo, tinkering with it long into post-production to achieve the perfect effect.

Stewart starred in four Hitchcock productions, matched only by Cary Grant. While Hitchcock always seemed to want to be Grant – debonair, traditionally handsome, prissiness tolerated by nearly all – it was Stewart who was the more analogous counterpart for the director. Vertigo was his last film with Hitchcock, and it is one of his most disturbing performances. Little known is the fact that Stewart worked as a creative partner with Hitchcock. He wanted the role of Scottie in Vertigo, and the richness of his performance is due in large part to conversations he had with Taylor. Stewart's work with Hitchcock and western director Anthony Mann in the 1950s allowed him to dig deeper into the darkness of the human soul, and the actor told Taylor he was willing to go deep to create the hurt and tortured aspects of Scottie. The effect was cyclical: Stewart gave Taylor permission to let the writing become more complex, which only strengthened Stewart's performance. Scottie is dark, psychological, complex, and has such regard for the illusion of Madeleine that he has little regard for Judy's emotions. Like Jeff in Rear Window, he is the protagonist but a difficult man to root for because his goodness is undercut by his more abnormal tendencies. Still, we sympathize with him during the entire movie, even as his darker side emerges; Stewart plays it subtle, close to the chest, and steel-jawed throughout much of the film, and when he becomes prone to episodes of viciousness, we have become so attached to the character we still sympathize with him; he is not angry to mean, but angry to release the pain stored in his emotional valves.

Of course we sympathize with Novak's Judy in this ordeal, too, maybe as much as the audience has ever sympathized with a female lead since Rebecca; while Vertigo straddles the line of patriarchy and misogyny, it is never callous. It is clear Judy does her actions willfully and her love seems real; as much as Scottie seeks to mute the natural for the artifice, her emotions are never muted. The source of her pain is the zigzag course of manipulation: first by Gavin, then of Scottie, then again by Scottie. Most production accounts of the shooting of Vertigo make clear that Novak and Hitchcock never got along. She disagreed with many of his decisions (most notably, she didn't want to wear grey), and she sought counsel and advice from Stewart regularly because she didn't receive the feedback she wanted from Hitchcock. Years later, she said wasn't sure he really liked her. Those on the set with Hitchcock in other productions knew how much he could dote on the men and women he loved, and accounts indicate that attitude was not present for Novak. But her performance in Vertigo is one of the chilliest from a Hitchcock woman: she is a world-class example of restraint, broken and tormented just below the surface. Perhaps not surprisingly, Hitchcock worked her to this successful degree, and in a great coincidence of life-reflecting-art, for the role of Madeleine, Novak was dressed against her will and forced to carry herself in a certain way. If there ever proof needed that Hitchcock thrived on a sordid vicariousness of what the men in his films did, and what the camera was able to capture, it was on the set of Vertigo, where his own treatment of Novak eerily mirrors Scottie's treatment of Madeleine.

The director's team of regulars each played important roles in making Vertigo the masterful film that is, and the man who deserves a large portion of the credit is Robert Burks, Hitchcock's most trusted cinematographer. It is one thing to visualize certain shots, as Hitchcock often did, sometimes sketching them and story-boarding them so tightly the final result hardly deviates from the design; it is a whole other to execute them as flawlessly as Burks does. The cinematographer only won a single Oscar for his body of work – To Catch a Thief, a dazzlingly shot but relatively unremarkable Hitchcock film – but his talents are better displayed in the noirish black-and-white of Strangers on a Train, the claustrophobic complexities of Dial M for Murder and Rear Window, and the highly geometric work on North by Northwest. Of all Hitchcock's color films, however, Vertigo has the best look – luscious reds and greens painted throughout as important emotional symbols, and the hazy shots of an ethereal San Francisco capture the ghostliness and intrigue of the film's mysteries. Thanks to a 1996 restoration project, today we have much of the intended color still popping and humming with electricity. But still, beyond the gorgeous color, there is the issue of the astounding technical wizardry. There is the memorable kiss sequence, where the camera spins around Stewart and Day as they embrace and the dizzying effect creates both bewilderment and ecstasy. And of course, there is the camera shot named for the film: the Vertigo effect, or dolly zoom, developed by Paramount cameraman Irmin Roberts and which beautifully distorts the perspective in the film by zooming and dollying in opposite directions. It is a pièce de résistance in the canon of Hitchcock visuals, and he later discussed it by saying, "I always remember one night at the Chelsea Arts Ball at Albert Hall in London when I got terribly drunk, and I had the sensation that everything was going far away from me."

It is fitting that the film called Hitchcock's best also features some of the best work by his traditional crew. Edith Head worked on costumes, George Tomasini was editor, and Herbert Coleman, a second-unit director and associate producer on many Hitchcock films, was an instrumental part of many post-production discussions. Vertigo was also the first three collaborations Hitchcock with title designer Saul Bass. The opening title sequence, where images of a woman's face overlap with Lissajous spirals, is Hitchcock in one of his most surreal moments. (The orange poster I mentioned earlier was also designed by Bass.) Of all the collaborative successes on Vertigo, however, perhaps none is more important than Hitchcock's work with Bernard Herrmann, who scored the film. Herrmann's Vertigo score is perhaps the best of any of Hitchcock's films, and certainly among the greatest film scores completed. It is instantly chilling with its spiraling notes and mournful repetition, like an addict's return to bad habits. I haven't ever heard the score defined better than by Martin Scorsese, who said in 2004: "Hitchcock's film is about obsession, which means that it's about circling back to the same moment, again and again ... And the music is also built around spirals and circles, fulfilment and despair. Herrmann really understood what Hitchcock was going for — he wanted to penetrate to the heart of obsession." It was a stroke of genius on Hitchcock's part to allow Vertigo to slide along for long stretches without any dialogue at all, only Herrmann's score floating above the actors and locations like a light and spooky fog. The violin strings of Psycho could be Herrmann's most culturally familiar composition, but the entire score of Vertigo, from start to finish, is his magnum opus.

And so Vertigo is commonly referred to as Hitchcock's magnum opus. In a lot of ways, it's difficult to refute that title – there was a strange and heavenly intersection of material, time, desire, and teamwork that went into producing this film. My favorite Hitchcock film, Rear Window, has always been to me a testament in the goal of all moviemaking, but even I must admit the aura on Vertigo is more magnetic than on Rear Window. You cannot learn everything about Hitchcock simply by watching this film (you need to consider him across all his many splendid films), but Vertigo has the feeling of closeness between a great artist and his great art, that kind of feeling that connects Vincent van Gogh with The Starry Night, Miles Davis with Kind of Blue, Frank Lloyd Wright with Fallingwater, F. Scott Fitzgerald with The Great Gatsby, and so on. When we watch Vertigo, we are watching Hitchcock, and what's inside is at once breathtaking and terrifying.

Continue reading »

19 August 2008

Singin' in the Rain (1952)

d. Stanley Donen and Gene Kelly / USA / 103 mins.


It's a production story as famous as those bright yellow slickers and the drenched, love-stricken man swinging from a street lamp: instructed to assemble a movie around preexisting songs in the MGM vaults, they came up with what is surely the greatest of all cinematic musicals.

The year was 1950. Arthur Freed, songwriter-cum-producer extraordinaire, is heading a staff of writers and composers at MGM in his musicals unit. Screenwriters Betty Comden and Adolph Green – who had just co-written Ginger Rogers and Fred Astaire's reunion film, and completed On the Town with Leonard Bernstein – are tasked with the title "Singin' in the Rain" and a collection of songs Freed and Nacio Herb Brown wrote in the 1920s and 1930s. All the screenwriters need to do is fill in the gaps.

And, man, do they ever. To watch Singin' in the Rain – to enjoy its freedom and joyfulness, to float on its effervescence, to bathe in its glowing sunlight – is an experience best summarized in the very words of that drenched love-stricken man: what a glorious feeling. It is an antidote to an ailment you never knew you had. It's called the greatest musical, and I've never seen another that has so far proven itself better. (A Hard Day's Night, a film that is the antithesis of the Hollywood musical, is perhaps the closest competition.)

The plot – well, people have said the plot doesn't matter. What a load of crap. If you've ever sat through any Hollywood musical you know that the plot does matter, and the reason our minds blur the marquee letters of so many is that most have half-hearted and half-sketched plots. Certainly it can be said, without even a scintilla of controversy, that well-written plots have a reputation for making movies better. This might be one of the key reasons Singin' in the Rain is so joyous: it has a real, substantial plot. It is about something other than singing and dancing, and it brims with robust comedy and romance instead of isolated musical numbers strung together with cotton twine. For all the joy that a Rogers-Astaire film can be – and a film like Swing Time has its share of joy – it is nothing more than a showcase for its stars' vocal chords and athleticism. Take out the musical numbers from Singin' in the Rain and you'd still have a first-rate comedy. (But, c'mon, why would you want to take out the musical numbers?)

Workhorse actor Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and the vain actress Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen) are the product of the studio system, forcibly partnered on- and off-screen to become Hollywood's the most famous silent movie duo – until 1927, and the steady stream of assembly-line silent movies is thrown wildly off-course by the emergence of sound. Halfway through the current Lockwood-Lamont film, the studio head decides it must convert to sound, which proves nearly disastrous for the air-headed and ingratiating Lamont, whose voice doesn't live up to her silent screen persona, to say the least. Lockwood's best friend (Donald O'Connor as a Hercules of comic relief) concocts a scheme to dub Lamont with a chorus girl named Kathy Selden (Debbie Reynolds), and ... well, you know how charming those chorus girls can be.

Cue the rain-machine.

What, you were expecting Shakespeare? All right, so it's not the plot to end all plots, but it's pretty damn good for a musical and it's killer comedy, to boot. If Sunset Boulevard is Hollywood caught in a solar eclipse, then Singin' in the Rain is Hollywood on the other side of the sun, the infectiously light-hearted side. Everything about the transition from silence to sound – such as microphones hidden in flower vases – is laid out for full comic effect, backed by thin coating of elbowing and satire. As Billy Wilder's film makes perfectly clear, it is true that many of the silent stars and crew members found themselves adrift in the sound waves, unable to subdue their pantomime or read lines convincingly, and their careers fell apart in the late 1920s and early 1930s. As tragic as it can be, there's also a great deal of humor in it.

In many senses, Singin' in the Rain is a technical marvel as well. It was co-directed by Kelly and 28-year-old Stanley Donen, filmed in splendid Technicolor with Kelly supervising the choreography (making his contributions to the film essentially invaluable). It has been hypothesized that the film succeeds so tremendously because the production was low-key, loose, and fun, yet popular anecdotes don't seem to back up that claim. Kelly performed his signature dance number with a 103-degree fever. He belittled Reynolds's amateur dancing, and supposedly her feet later bled after the intense shooting of "Good Morning." O'Connor suffered exhaustion after shooting "Make 'Em Laugh." But it all comes together on screen. The three deliver wonderful performances, as most certainly does Hagen, in reality a normal-voiced woman and the only cast member to earn an Oscar nomination.

I mentioned before how the songs were culled from MGM's vaults; today that fact hardly matters because we only remember the songs for their placement in Singin' in the Rain. (Seriously, when someone says "I'm singin' in the rain, just singin' in the rain," you don't think of Hollywood Revue of 1929, do you?) It is worth noting though that Comden and Green contributed lyrics to one song and Freed wrote two original for the film: "Moses Supposes" and "Make 'Em Laugh," a slapstick dance number that is still hilarious no matter how many times I'm told it was a rip-off of Cole Porter's "Be a Clown."

It's obligatory in any review of Singin' in the Rain to note how the film slipped under the radar of nearly everyone in 1952. It was well-received but hardly adored; its box office take was modest; and it was nominated for, and lost, two Oscars. MGM's prize film at the time was Freed's production of An American in Paris, incidentally a film I don't care for at all but which won Best Picture and earned Kelly an honorary award for his contribution to the musical as an art form. But don't trust awards; trust time. If you've managed to go this long without letting Singin' in the Rain come across your radar, you owe to yourself as a cognizant being to settle into your favorite seat, stretch and loosen the smile muscles in your face, and hit play. It is, as you know, a glorious feeling.

Continue reading »

14 August 2008

Citizen Kane (1941)

d. Orson Welles / USA / 119 mins.


Orson Welles's Citizen Kane has been discussed in every single way possible, from broader philosophical implications to the elementary structuring of a single frame, and all that's left are personal stories. Here's mine.

I first saw the film at the tender age of 15, shortly after the American Film Institute named it the No. 1 U.S. movie of the twentieth century. (But of course the canonical entrenchment goes on from there; the decennial Sight & Sound poll, the crème de la crème of pointless rankings, has had it in the top position since 1962.) At the time I didn't see the big deal was; I preferred Casablanca and The Godfather, and I dismissed Citizen Kane as a critical aberration and spent the subsequent decade complaining about its devoted following.

But time is a funny thing, and one need look no further than Citizen Kane to prove the point. This is a movie has defied, and defined, time. You see, 15-year-old boys are stupid. We are simple and have simple things on our minds. I have now re-watched Citizen Kane. Revisiting films is always a unique experience, like spotting a face in a crowd, someone you barely remember except for hairlines and smiles. I recalled the plot, and the images were vaguely recognizable, but it is an entirely different movie; it is a supremely well-crafted and entertaining motion picture, as a matter of fact. I still prefer Casablanca and The Godfather, but boy, do I also like Citizen Kane.

It seems many people come to Citizen Kane this way. When it was released, in 1941, it was popular among critics but decried by those who wanted to remain popular in the eyes of William Randolph Hearst (upon whom the character of Charles Foster Kane is based). The film famously lost Best Director and Best Picture to John Ford and his film How Green Was My Valley. It won the little-movie-that-can category – Best Original Screenplay – but was booed at the ceremony whenever mentioned (again, by those skittish Hearstwhiles). It took a re-release in the 1950s for the film even to turn a profit.

But yet, here it is, defying time to sit atop the heap of film canisters, looming over all celluloid like the blow-up print of Kane looms over the grinning human Kane standing at a podium. Why? Well, because it's a great a movie in its pieces and in its whole. The script, by then-25-year-old Welles and Herman J. Mankiewicz, is deliciously layered and non-linear, exposing the rise and fall of a man who seems to be always smiling but is never happy. The camerawork is absolutely wicked: flowing like wind on a jetstream, it brings you along for a legitimate ride, and the deep-focus and chiaroscuro cinematography by Gregg Toland is splendid. (As has been noted elsewhere, Welles's appreciation of Toland is evident in his placement of Toland alongside himself in the screen credits.) Bernard Herrmann, who would go on to write some of the most recognizable and imitated scores in Hollywood history, put the flourishing brassy tones into Kane. Many very fine actors made their film debuts here, including Welles, Joseph Cotten, and Agnes Moorehead. Along with JFK, the film is also one of the best assemblages I've ever seen, thanks to editor Robert Wise, who links images and sounds with utter smoothness.

But is it the greatest movie ever? It's pretty damn great, but it's not perfect. There's a section near its end when the investigative reporter (who's trying to figure out what in the hell "Rosebud" is) interviews Kane's ex-wife for the second time, and it's far too slow in comparison to the rest of the film's pacing. Pauline Kael has noted the film's one big goof, too, which it only half-heartedly attempts to correct. (No one is with Kane when he breathes his last word). And while acknowledging how great the film is on a technical level, it is possible to overstate the originality in Welles's decisions. Citizen Kane runs like a Swiss clock and looks as good as any movie could look, but Welles was undoubtedly influenced by techniques already shown in the films of Ford, Howard Hawks, and Alfred Hitchcock – particularly Ford's Stagecoach and Hitchcock's Rebecca. (Rather than calling Citizen Kane groundbreaking, it might be more accurate to say the film is an innovative apprentice rivaling the masters.) But those are fairly petty complaints for a film and they hardly diminish its overall effect.

I suspect most critics wouldn't call the singular greatest, either; it's just that many, many critics would cite it as among the best, leading it to be a highly satisfactory consensus candidate. For example: In the most recent Sight & Sound poll, done in 2002, of the 145 critics who voted, a plurality of 46 put Citizen Kane somewhere on a top-ten list – enough to make it the most-nominated film, yes, but hardly a blowout. And even then, Hitchcock's Vertigo was only five votes behind.

Personally, I could name at least twenty-five movies I like more, but that means Citizen Kane is still toward the top, doesn't it? Its regard is probably owed to its fortuitous placement in history: after the birth of the studio system, before World War II; fresh enough to be innovative, old enough to be classic; independent and free, yet collaborative and restrained; sly, but in an amusing kids-in-the-candy-shop sort of way; a rebellious film that somehow became the standard against which films are placed. It superbly performs the task we demand from movies: it tells a very good story in a very good way. And greatest movie or not, that's what makes Citizen Kane timeless.

Continue reading »

05 August 2008

Sunrise (1927)

d. F.W. Murnau / USA / 95 mins.


I've heard people say they can't see the magic in Citizen Kane because Orson Welles's aesthetic innovations have become so commonplace in movies today. As much I fervently disagree with that statement (full disclosure: I used to say it before I sat down and revisited Kane as a free-thinking adult), I don't think the same can be said for F.W. Murnau's Sunrise. Murnau's film was a technical breakthrough in its own time, on par with the work in Kane but still somehow different. Put simply, it's quite unlike any other film I've ever seen.

If you only had time in your life for one silent drama (a preposterous notion, indeed; why don't more people make time for silent films?), I think you'd probably have to go with Sunrise (often referred to by its full title, Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans). It holds up remarkably well under 80-plus years of imitators, and watching it again it's impossible not to awe at the totality of Murnau's expressionist vision – the shadow-soaked atmosphere, the poetic art direction, the zero-gravity camera work in an age when film cameras weighed as much as men.

The plot is as follows: A man and a woman (never named, but amiably acted by George O'Brien and Janet Gaynor) live in the country, where the man is having an affair with a "Woman from the City" (actual casting credit there). The city-woman wants the wife killed, and the man and his wife venture toward the city via boat, where he is expected to throw his wife overboard, and yet...

Well, you'll just have to see it. At first the story seems a little too simplistic, and it's often where the detractors of Sunrise sink their fangs; there aren't many title cards because the film is so straightforward. But how then do we understand it as clearly as we do? The answer, of course, is that the actual storytelling device in any silent drama is neither the acting nor the title cards but rather the camera. (The silent comedies, like those of Buster Keaton and Charlie Chaplin, depend more heavily on the characters.) Charles Rosher and Karl Struss shared an Academy Award for their cinematography, which is among the best of the silent period. Gaynor took home the film's third Oscar, for Best Actress.

Murnau's ability to weave emotion with technical wizardry is undeniably powerful and still amazing. A lesser director could have produced the material with the depth of a wading pool; Murnau's film is infused with his masterly touch and its emotional range exists somewhere out in the depths under a diving board. (It lost the best production category at the 1927-1928 Oscars to William Wellman's war melodrama Wings, and instead took home a well-deserved award for unique and artistic vision. History has fallen on the side of Sunrise, however; in 2002 it turned up on the esteemed Sight & Sound poll of the ten greatest films.)

Murnau's German expressionist work back in Europe – where the technical aspects of filmmaking influenced the look, feel, and tone of a movie – made him one of the great directors of the early twentieth century (and some, I'm sure, would say of the entire century). In Germany he steered such classics as Nosferatu (1922), The Last Laugh (1924), and Faust (1926). He was invited to Hollywood by William Fox to make an expressionist film, which turned out to be Sunrise. His next two films were made with sound and flopped, and he died in a car accident less than five years after the release of Sunrise, missing the premiere of his final film, Tabu (1931). Sunrise remains Murnau's greatest film and is among the best out there.

Continue reading »

  © 2008-2010 Screen Savour. Licensed under Creative Commons.

  Template © ourblogtemplates.com

Back to TOP