champura: blog.champura.com - Yes Tom, "Sunrise" was the first best picture
Campaspe
· 1 year ago
I followed your link here from Mr. O'Neil's post, because I liked your arguments there. I like them here as well. I agree with your general point, of course--you need not like a movie to appreciate its significance. There are several important movies that I personally disliked, such as 2001. But I'd be a fool not to acknowledge that movie's inventiveness and influence.
One point of disagreement, though. I think one thing (out of many) that O'Neil gets wrong is that what he is dismissing as melodramatic or "hammy" acting is just another form of performance. Realism is an acting style like any other and there's no reason to consider it the only valid way to approach the art. I'd argue that the performances in Sunrise (as well as the other great films made in the very great year 1927) are not melodramatic at all, if you consider melodrama to be a story where the high-pitched plot is taking precedence over character development. Character is all Sunrise has, the plot is deliberately kept as classically simple as possible. Rather, the acting is Romantic, presentational, deliberately done at a heightened emotional pitch. To me Gaynor is a wonder in Sunrise. To attach the adjective "schmaltzy" to her performance hurts my heart. Murnau was a genius and I am convinced he could have gotten any sort of acting out of the three main characters that he wanted. He got the performances that the film needed.
I hope you don't mind my stopping by to share my rather long-winded thoughts, as I plan to continue to read your blog.
Todd Holmes
· 1 year ago
Thanks for your thoughts. It feels a bit like semantics to argue whether or not the performances in Sunrise are, by definition, melodramatic. I do agree however that the performances fit with perfectly with the film, given that at heart it is a fable and the heightened emotions contribute to that. However, it wasn't a point I was ready to argue with O'Neil since I felt his dismissal of the artistic innovations was a bigger issue. Also I knew that, if he couldn't accept that truth, convincing him of the merits of the performances was a pointless exercise.
I also agree that realism is not the only valid approach to acting. Bresson of course is the most used example for that argument. But unfortunately most cinema nowadays where "a melodramatic style" of acting is employed is often dismissed out-of-hand by (Western) critics ("Bollywood" cinema immediately comes to mind). I've seen some recent Indian cinema (especially some from the southern Tamil regions) that can be as entertaining and interesting as any contemporary Western cinema.
Campaspe
· 1 year ago
Fable is the perfect word for Sunrise. And I agree, trying to convince O'Neil of the merits of the performances was a secondary issue. I was and remain astonished that he couldn't back down enough even to acknowledge the film's influence. But it seems clear to me that his grasp of film history is tenuous.
All Comments
One point of disagreement, though. I think one thing (out of many) that O'Neil gets wrong is that what he is dismissing as melodramatic or "hammy" acting is just another form of performance. Realism is an acting style like any other and there's no reason to consider it the only valid way to approach the art. I'd argue that the performances in Sunrise (as well as the other great films made in the very great year 1927) are not melodramatic at all, if you consider melodrama to be a story where the high-pitched plot is taking precedence over character development. Character is all Sunrise has, the plot is deliberately kept as classically simple as possible. Rather, the acting is Romantic, presentational, deliberately done at a heightened emotional pitch. To me Gaynor is a wonder in Sunrise. To attach the adjective "schmaltzy" to her performance hurts my heart. Murnau was a genius and I am convinced he could have gotten any sort of acting out of the three main characters that he wanted. He got the performances that the film needed.
I hope you don't mind my stopping by to share my rather long-winded thoughts, as I plan to continue to read your blog.
I also agree that realism is not the only valid approach to acting. Bresson of course is the most used example for that argument. But unfortunately most cinema nowadays where "a melodramatic style" of acting is employed is often dismissed out-of-hand by (Western) critics ("Bollywood" cinema immediately comes to mind). I've seen some recent Indian cinema (especially some from the southern Tamil regions) that can be as entertaining and interesting as any contemporary Western cinema.