tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330397312471694316.post805142299987287017..comments2023-06-30T07:25:02.637-07:00Comments on Considering the Cinema: Sunrise, finally?Jason Pyles, Movie Critichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18335353071850524427noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330397312471694316.post-85928754738175483862008-08-21T23:04:00.000-07:002008-08-21T23:04:00.000-07:00When I wrote that the movie seemed too 21st centur...When I wrote that the movie seemed too 21st century, I simply meant that the story seemed well beyond its time. Not having lived in the 1920s, but having seen in my relatively short lifetime the paring down of subjects that were once taboo makes me wonder if many moviegoers in 1927 were disgusted or offended by the subject matter. Its true that infidelity and murder have been topics of conversation and story-telling throughout the ages, but it seems that as each different type of media grows and struggles through infancy, the partaking public is very critical of its portrayal of any kind of misdeed. <BR/><BR/>And Jason, thanks for always being such a great champion of other people.<BR/><BR/>AndyJason Pyles, Movie Critichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18335353071850524427noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3330397312471694316.post-12635607764447378172008-08-21T18:50:00.000-07:002008-08-21T18:50:00.000-07:00Andy,I loved the humility and the honesty of your ...Andy,<BR/><BR/>I loved the humility and the honesty of your post. I think we film critics, filmmakers and film students sometimes forget that the “average” movie-lover’s insights are just as valid as ours, if not more so.<BR/><BR/>It was the late, great film criticism pioneer, James Agee, who said, “A professional’s preoccupation with technique, with the box office, with bad traditions or simply with work, can blur or alter the angle of his own judgment.”<BR/><BR/>That being said, I’ve got some friendly questions for you: What did you mean when you said the plot of “Sunrise” seemed too 21st century to you? As you know, this film was produced in 1927, the 20th century. I’m intrigued. Please explain further, if you get a chance.<BR/><BR/>I agree that the film’s direction is hard to anticipate. Back before many of today’s clichés existed, “Sunrise” was already refreshingly original and unpredictable. In fact, this made the film seem quite bizarre. This is what I meant when I was discussing the movie’s shifting tone.<BR/><BR/>Picture an ant traveling across the sand. That’s exactly what watching this movie was like for me: The turns come suddenly at times, and at other times, the ant (or the movie) proceeds in an unlikely direction for a surprisingly long time.<BR/><BR/>It’s neat, Andy, that you said silent films are among the best you’ll ever see. Many of the pioneers from Murnau’s era would agree with you, I think. I gathered from my reading of film history that many people thought sound ruined the cinema. I don’t know that I’d go that far — product-of-my-own-time that I am.<BR/><BR/>If you watch several films from the nineteen-teens and 1920s, you’ll see the progression of story-telling technique. Films like “The Last Laugh” (1924), for example, were told so well, visually, they didn’t even need title cards. Roger Ebert said the single title card used in “The Last Laugh” wasn’t necessary. I agree.<BR/><BR/>When sound came along, filmmakers had to learn to tell their stories all over again. And the cumbersome microphone problem didn’t help matters, either.<BR/><BR/>Yes, “The General” (1927) may be the best silent film ever made, but I’d call it a tie with “The Last Laugh.” Can anyone think of one better? Dr. Moody always said “The Wind” (1928) was his favorite. What do you all think?Jason Pyles, Movie Critichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08321411318807059550noreply@blogger.com