82 Sunrise

Brief Synopsis (from Netflix)
Director F.W. Murnau's emotional odyssey stars George O'Brien and Janet Gaynor as a country couple whose marriage is threatened when O'Brien falls prey to cosmopolitan temptress Margaret Livingston's feminine wiles. Imbued with an intoxicating ambiance in style and substance, the lyrical silent film -- which is, by turns, quixotic, blissful, sensual and terrifying -- chalked up Academy Awards for Best Actress (Gaynor) and Best Cinematography.

Bryan

"...After the boat has capsized, save yourself with these bullrushes. The rushes will hold you up. Scatter them before you reach the shore and tell everyone she drowned by accident"

So this was the first full-length silent film that I've ever actually sat through. (I've seen most of Birth of a Nation, but approached it more as a historical document than entertainment.) I can appreciate why this was put on the list- it does illustrate the development of film.


But being a silent film makes me feel like it is almost an entire other genre altogether. We aren't including television programming, yet I would argue that the rest of the films on this list have more in common with modern television than with silent films. Other than being first viewed in a cinema, the approach to acting and storytelling is wholly different. So it's hard for me to try and rank this movie against the rest I've seen- I'm comparing Apples to PCs. (Or Oranges. Whichever cliche you prefer.)

I recognize some of the cinematography as very impressive. There was a scene where the man was imagining a woman putting her arms around him, and they superimposed an image shot at another time to give a ghostly effect. In all honesty, I wish modern cinema did more if this kind of visualization: Today they would have used computer generated special effects that in many ways lose the power of this kind of scene. Shots like that would have been quite impressive to audiences unaccostomed to special effects- I hail from a generation constantly pummeled with special effects and I was quite happy with it.

And quite a lot did happen, which surprised me. Since the dialog was reduced to 10 or 15 cards, I expected there to be less plot, but in actuality quite a complex story played out. This was surprising; quite a bit of important story and nuance were told without any lines at all. Despite my lack of experience, I can believe that this was one of the most effective silent films.

Final Thought- I undertsand the argument for including films such as this on the list, but it would not go on mine. It belongs on a film class syllabus, but I am not willing to tout it as a movie that most people need to have seen. If interested in the genre, then this may be a good way to begin a foray into silent films, but I don't think it stands up next to modern "talkies."


Jason

(No quote this time, I just felt like the text boxes wasn't worth posting)

So...umm...this movie is silent. I didn't know that until like 3 hours before I watched it. While for some people that isn't a big deal and I guess it could even make it more enjoyable, but for me it takes a lot away from the movie. I know I'm going to get a lot of complaints about this (especially from Steph), but the reason I dislike silent films is the same reason I dislike foreign films. A lot of what I enjoy about a movie is the way an actor delievers his lines. I mean think about it. What makes an actor great? Its his/her ability to deliever his/her lines in a very convincing way. So as soon as I have to start reading their lines I feel like a lot of the realism is lost

That being said I was very impressed with this movie. It conveyed a lot of story with very few of the texts boxes (I think in the last 45 minutes there was only one). The acting is very over the top, though that is necessary in silent films to get across the emotion, and honestly I did not hate this movie (which says a lot).

Final Thought- I didn't hate this movie, but that does not mean I liked it. It goes no where near my list of 100.