For more than five years that the Allies had lifted the ban on the Germans, several workers were German film that had crossed the pond and many others would follow in the future, Ernst Lubitsch highlighted between those already there. Although adaptation was not always easy, Friedrich Wilhelm Murnau did not have too much trouble, he liked to live in luxury, and if something was there, was this: luxury. Fred was soon Murnau, put everything in their power to a rapid and successful adaptation.
But Murnau, art has no boundaries, for Faust, without going any further, he pulled several foreign players, in Sunrise, however, would not have to look far. The undisputed star of the film was Janet Gaynor, an appearance very similar to Camilla Horn (taken from the manga) of his latest film in Germanic lands. If the nationality of the players is not going to serve to determine to what extent it was "American" tape, not the sets of Rochus Gliese, because in the words of Murnau:
"It's not French or German or Italian. Can be defined as modern, but not responding the standard currency of any nation in particular. His sets are a mixture of all nations [...]"
We have said that Murnau adapted well to the lifestyle of Hollywood (his relationship with the land of Coca- Cola in the future would be another story) and he talked about his film as something universal, is it, then keep wondering if something changed in the Murnau film because of working in another country?, there are still aspects that we've played:
The screenplay was by Carl Mayer and is based on a story by Hermann Sudermann; Antonio talked about this already, so no more need be said. The original story is written from USA is not even set there, however, it does fit the kind of story (with variations to the script, which was not even written in English) that used to roll in America.
is a story that would not have been accepted by the mere fact of exchanging sex of the protagonists, the society is still sexist but then there it was, my partner personally planned to end my life, give me reasons more than enough to end the relationship, although that does not fit with the concepts of perpetual union, and redemption (especially if there is a "chromosome" in between) that hold some monotheistic religions. We could say that in terms of history if you notice some Americanization, not only by the moral, in that aspect was not very different from the German but the "happy end", it was done in a country where movies above anything else was a hobby and it was "advisable" to leave a good impression on the viewer. We continue with a characteristic of American cinema:
In American movies of the time was common to include some comic gags, gags that we saw (at least not as white) in Murnau's earlier work, out of his foray into comedy in the film Die Finanzen des Großherzogs (1924). As MurnauVsBuñuel said, these jokes were not in the script by Carl Mayer. On whether or not inclusion, there is a disparity of opinions, from those who are delighted to those who believe they were abused, I find myself in this second group. The film navigates rapidly between tragedy and comedy, to remove drama and heighten the sense of calmness when appropriate, Murnau included a series of gags. The inclusion yeah do not think it unwise, to fulfill their goal, but I also think are somewhat harmful to the rhythm of the film, the gag the pig is perhaps the best example. 
gag is a long, drawn, which I find your site in a film that was a comedy from beginning to end, but for Sunrise stretches too much. And taught us the scene before the photographer, quite placid, relaxed, tender ... and that the viewer does not relax as soon some tension at specific moments in the salon, although generally following the trend began shortly before the play within the fair and after the pig we have the game with bags of clothing and that is why the scene of the pig not think it was necessary to reinforce the feeling of happiness, tranquility, peacefulness ... and yes on the other side to be a gag so long remains rhythm to the action without really providing the narrative. As I said, for any comedy would be a good scene, but Sunrise no longer a drama in which comedy scenes just make the dramatic gain in potency.
We have already seen some feature of Americanization in Murnau for this his debut in Hollywood, but perhaps the clearest appreciate in relation to the viewer. In this case I think is more due to prejudices, installed in American society itself and in the European way of perceiving it, on their ability to understand under what kind of film. Because yes, it's ridiculous to say that films like Der Letzte Mann (as was shown in Germany) in America would not work (the version that was exported had more pace than the German but not so to the public would like to the market will wonder at the wonders that could roll UFA), because in reality neither the European public seemed ready for viewing (the failure at the box office is proof.) Or simply, why complicate it was therefore not a film that reached the people who were interested, or not understood the message. It simplified things for the American market because it was believed that this would come to the public, it was thought that the public across the Atlantic was not able to eat bread that was not dampened a bit beforehand, but underestimated the capabilities of overestimating the American public was compression of the European public.
Murnau's films are characterized by being composed of layers, different messages as we looked deep but superficial story was always easy to follow to the public, often used to avoid redundant means no one was left behind. In Sunrise went further, the public thought more than in any previous film. We see an excessive presence of intertitles, the film is beautifully planned, no one has a name, the presence of relevant characters is small ... the story did not need signs for the public to follow. If we look at those who are, are actually very few for what was usual in a film of this length, the vast majority, if not all, could be deleted without losing narrative power. At the beginning of the film and when we started to see the first signs of distance in the couple (an elegant city woman just whistle), the husband leaves his wife with the table set and goes to meet her lover. We see two women to heat the home by introducing a flashback: "They used to be like children, carefree ... always happy and laughing ... "after an idealized scene over his wife with child in arms and working with animals, comprising a close-up little space, leaving a scene very overloaded (maybe this flashback was inspired by seeing this another in Körkarlen, Murnau film he saw in Sweden the year of its release, and unlike the latter, is impeccable), then repeat the former titlecard and foreground of one of the ladies who went on to say: 
"Now it is ruined because of that woman in the city - empty the farm lenders." Shown as are the animal and then repeated (once again) the last titlecard adding a line "...- empty farm lenders, and his wife sits alone, looking after the ailing wife face sitting alone to the table. I think this flashback is probably the only awkward moment in the film, trying to help both the viewer's understanding that in a flashback than a minute they get up to four intertitles that simply forward what we see, and against creating the people who did not see a silent film in your life, this is not the purpose of the intertitles. That minute could have taken to have made the flashback in conditions and without these intertitles that makes all the gross friction.
On the other hand have thought more in public than in any previous film, despite having led to this unfortunate flashback, managed to come (come) like never before to the public. Always be blamed on the Murnau film distance, coldness, his obsession pictorial art and trends kept him away from the audience, this movie without saving in technical prowess and keeping a group of pictures, gotta make a film more accessible to the public at the time and even more so, today's audience. If we exclude Nosferatu (whose fame transcends the screen and not always linked to the name Murnau), this is his most famous film and acclaimed by the public at present, so that is not necessarily think that Americanization has to be some bad rodase rodase where certain tolls would be paid, but the fact of being shot in one place or another did not guarantee anything. I just tried to focus the article differently than Silent Passion already published, but not to critique the film because of where it was filmed. It is true that played little, if anything, the wonders of the film, but it was because they have other partners, to be repeated. Needless to say, I think one of the great films of cinema history.
In the title I wonder if it really was America that influenced Murnau or if it was he who did so on his film. We saw that in some way, you can answer yes to the first question, there has been an Americanization of the Murnau film, but it can be stated even more emphatically that his stay in Hollywood was a murnauización of America, and the intentions of William Fox to sign him were more for his way of filmmaking than her films and while Sunrise was not a profitable movie for studies based on their collection if it was all they could learn this movie changed the way of making films in Hollywood forever, starting Borzage Seventh Heaven (filmed Sunrise parallel with part of "technology") and extending to the clear influence was Murnau (and many other European film industry workers who crossed the Atlantic) in the golden age of cinema studies, 30 and 40. So we can remove the questions and stay with a "Sunrise: Americanized to Murnau murnaurizando America. "
0 comments:
Post a Comment