"Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans" by Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau (1927)

I absolutely love "Nosferatu" and was so bowled over with "Faust" that initially I saw it twice in a row but this particular movie, made as Murnau arrived in Hollywood (and awarded with several first ever Oscars) left me sort of underwhelmed. It is clearly a work of visual genius and in every frame one is aware this is Murnau, but the fact that he is now out of old continent and transplanted in a new world with its skyscrapers, machines, trains and jazz orchestras means that certain fantastic, dream-like quality is absent - the visual language is distinctively Murnau but the story happens in present time (well, 1920s America) so we are not dealing with myths and legends but with modern people (unless one takes them as representations of everyman and everywoman, as suggested in their names - The Man, The Wife, The Woman From the City and so on) and the story, oh the story, is so decidedly simplistic that it really bothered me. Half of the movie I wondered is this how great European director conform to Hollywood standards and makes everything so cartoonish, just to change my mind in a second half - he did create unforgettable piece of work by wrapping it all in a highly sophisticated imagery, but than again, he could have done it with Donald Duck as well.

The story - my main problem - is so featherlight that it almost defies description, since it could be explained in two lines. Roger Ebert understand and defends this by saying "silent films had a language of their own; they aimed for the emotions, not the mind" and its true that our venerable ancestors worked in a different world, where symbols and pictures had to explain what was happening on the screen (movie is silent but it has a highly effective music score). Like a snake from Eden, The Woman From the City (very good Margaret Livingston) comes between a happy couple and the rest of the movie is how love conquers all. There, it is actually one sentence. During 95 minutes Murnau proceeds to milk this extremely simple premise to weave his own distinguishable magic by adding layers and layers of ingredients - the more I think about it, the more I am impressed with final results because he really managed to create something unforgettable. Of course he had than unprecedented weapons on his disposal, huge budget and technical wizardry (movie is wonderful collage of special effects, techniques and superimposed images) which was all recognized by contemporary critics who praised his ingeniousness. The main actors are impressive as well - not so much Janet Gaynor (although she won Oscar) who is one-dimensional stereotype but her husband George O'Brien who has much more space to brilliantly display all sorts of emotions, from lust, madness, remorse and grief to gentleness and affection. (He is also one of those extremely rare silent era actors who appear stunningly modern even today) There are plenty of supporting characters, very effective in their small roles, including the photographer, barber, manicure girl and manager of hair salon, all of them perfectly tangible and rounded little miniatures in their way. Once I get over the overt simplicity of the story, I just might watch it again.