日出

如此成熟的技法很难让人相信这是部1927年的电影，双重曝光以及影像合成，在那个年代确实算的上前卫了。很喜欢狗狗上船的那段情节，在岸边吼叫不仅是在提醒女主危险的到来，也是男主内心挣扎的物化，可男主最终还是不希望淹死女主留下线索，决定掉转船头将狗狗送了回去，这一段女主的长镜头很好地设下了悬念，男主将要对狗狗做什么？只能留给观众想象。在男主的“良知”被唤醒后，与女主在街头拥吻引起交通堵塞的情节也很有意思，司机们开始向他们抱怨，一方面展现了城市化工业化对情感的吞噬，也是城市脆弱的体现。印象比较深的还有最后城市女在树上看男主和救援队去海上寻找女主，场面调度上角色位置的安排就很好地说明了人与人的悲欢并不同步。最后男主女主在小船上遭遇暴风雨，男主拿出那捆原来想淹死女主自救的芦苇杆，让女主依靠它上岸，可芦苇杆最初存在的目的就是只拯救男主一人，即使男主希望拯救女主，在命运下也成为徒劳。电影从前面制造悬疑到后面发掘笑点，运用的技法确实可圈可点。

但我对剧情以及人物设定多少有些不满意。电影虽叫日出，但我们不应该只看日出带来温暖的一面，日出也只是短暂的。第一女性角色的设定上还是过于保守刻板。女主在男主已经有外遇的情况下仍然过的如同无事发生一样，也没有女主怀疑的镜头插入，反而在男主夜间回来还给他盖好被子。在男主想要杀自己的动机暴露后买几朵花看个婚礼就能选择原谅，多少有点不聪明。在男主剃胡子的那段戏中，男女主都会对陌生异性的勾引对方产生嫉妒，但不一样的是男主能拿口袋里的刀威胁勾引女主的男性，而女主穿的裙子连口袋也没有，只能嫉妒。男主最后想活活掐死城市女，而城市女只是劝说男主去杀女主，男主接受了，这比劝说本身更罪恶，更何况女主是自己的妻子也是自己孩子的妈妈，掐死城市女就是在推卸责任，这也能说明男主并没有真正反省，这是很可怕的，再计划杀女主一次只是时间问题，就这种男的敢和他呆？但这毕竟也是一部老电影了，而且那个时代对女性的刻板印象也很多，但我绝不希望在今后的电影中看到。然后是剧情方面的一些问题，这部电影浪漫主义色彩有点过重了，两个来自乡村的男女主角，在远离自己家乡的城市找到了快乐与幸福，又把城市女设定成一个反派，这不是自相矛盾？这些先不谈，以上当然是有可能的，但这也就是我想强调的：日出是短暂的。平时情侣一次吵架分手过后出去玩了一圈又复合了，他们难道不会再吵架了吗？人还是人，本性难移。而且城市本身就对两人来说就是一个陌生又遥远的地方，那个破旧的小乡村才是他们的家，那里没有马戏团，没有照相馆，只有生活，平庸的生活。当初不就是在这个小乡村男主移情别恋的吗？谁说日出后不会有乌云呢？我倒觉得剧情上没必要最后搞个暴风雨让女主假死一下，不如就让他们从城市回家生活一段时间，从幻想到幻想可没从幻想到现实更具冲击力。

第18届法罗岛电影节第5个放映日为大家带来《日出》，下面请看前线在屏幕中不发出声音却早就表达出满腔感情的男女之评价了！

果树：

各方面趋近完美，超出一切对于电影二字的期许。

风临：

"最好的默片“，把这五个字一个不动地给予这部电影。

Morning：

叠画的文学性，被这部电影尽收，好厉害，我甚至觉得它是某位名作的短篇杰作，短短94分钟，网罗婚姻的五味杂陈。夫妻俩去合照那一段我尤其喜欢，轻快也轻狂，两人甜蜜的一吻，等照片时又偷吃水果打翻了雕像，那雕像原本没有头部，残缺的才是美好的，太有意义的意象，他们将球代替头部插了上去，恶作剧的欣喜的跑掉，收获了二人真正的幸福，这是文学世界里才写得出来的丰富的层次，但被这部电影畅快淋漓的拍摄了出来，杰作。

子夜无人：

大概是目前看过的默片里气质最为灵动的，呆板感几近于无，从田野水乡到十里洋场，从晦暗人心中勾连的欲望一直到满眼被风吹散的繁华，一切可视的、可以被捕捉感受到的质感像是浮在纸面上，清晰又易于破碎。到最后他仍然要践行至少一次将人扼杀的贪念，恶的成分一旦被人唤醒之后就是这样，无论是作为惊涛骇浪中翻然悔悟的浪子，还是结尾沐浴在爱的圣光里，底色已然黯淡，劫后余生的转危为安里，也有覆水难收的悲戚。

北阳向暖：

确实可能是最美的默片，甚至有些感觉不到是默片。故事具有很强的普遍性，这是电影的价值之一。

我略知她一二：

也许从未爱过一个人，比想象更深，比海洋更深。或许对你来说我更像是埋藏在海底，深不可测。如若这就是事情发展的必然，那我选择敞开强烈的直觉，因为一切还不算太坏，让我可以爱上你，这个看似不可能的人，我曾在原地打转，几乎在原地腐烂。 "你是我温暖的手套，冰冷的啤酒，带着阳光味道的衬衫，日复一日的梦想。你是甜蜜的，忧伤的，嘴唇上涂抹着新鲜的欲望，你的新鲜和你的欲望把你变得像动物一样的不可捉摸，像阳光一样无法逃避，像戏子一般的毫无廉耻，像饥饿一样冷酷无情。——《恋爱的犀牛》"

苍山古井空对月：

丈夫欲向妻子行凶失败后我就在想下面的故事该怎么讲，没想到这个开头有点黑色的故事居然转变为喜剧。虽然故事有点俗，但是茂瑙的各种电影手法不俗，跟《最卑贱的人》一样，用了许多对比：妻子抱着孩子哭泣和丈夫抱着情人幽会，城市的灯红酒绿和乡村的纯朴优美，城市人和村里人对猪的反应的差别，进城和出城夫妻二人的关系变化。除了视觉的手法，还在声音上进行了探索，模拟自然音、有源音，并且赋予了钟声象征意义。

#FIFF18#第5日场刊评分将于稍后释出，请大家拭目以待了。

电影《日出》用日出日落时的昏暗光亮比喻世上婚姻的模态，而两位主角的关系正如红日的轨迹，经历至暗时刻后在终局迎来光明，也让观者沉醉迷失在最后光耀四射的幸福之中。不过当我们把三人的关系落实到生活中，放下对艺术作品美满结局的追求，仅用世俗的目光审慎观之，它又如何不像日蚀时分。我们知道，当月球、太阳和地球三者处在一条直线，月球会挡住太阳射向地球的光，月球身后的黑影落到地球，这时发生日蚀。从影片引申出来，三者分别代指农妇人、城市女人和农夫。

作为月球，农妇人自从被地球吸引就只能围着地球旋转，一旦地球不再接受太阳的光芒，自身也会随之暗淡。在当时的婚姻中，妻子无疑是以丈夫为中心生活的，而她们是无力抗争的，就像妇人在知晓丈夫出门寻欢作乐时只能回房搂着孩子徒自流泪。有意思的是这里农妇人的扮相颇像西班牙的Macarena圣母，哭泣时眼中没有怨恨，没有愤怒，在切近的镜头里满是她的失神，甚至哀怜，让观者不禁羞愧自省自身是否有犯下相同罪恶。这神情也恰合她的不作为，不会去质问争取，因为她更害怕的是丈夫抛家弃子。试想若地球结束对月球的引力，那月球便会在离心运动中经历撞击后陨灭，换言之，纠缠对方的出轨反而让她自身脱轨，妇人的生活只会彻底失控。类比到这，我们便不必用现代的平权意识去苛责女主人公的逆来顺受，在时代背景的强力前提下，忍受称得上是不二选择。

作为太阳，城市女人是自放光芒的。一开场导演便让她撩起裙摆随意敞开腿，等待仆人为她整理鞋履。

黑大衣能盖住她的性感睡衣却遮不住她光洁裸露的双腿，这既暗示其放浪的性格又满足观者的偷窥欲。手夹着烟，她在烟雾缭绕中精心准备与情人的会面，很难不让人把这一情景与开篇车站里的蒸汽联想在一起：我们看不清女人的身姿，也看不清火车的模样，却被其吸引。确实，她来自城市，在仅有的两场戏中，导演都用吸烟时的气雾氤氲和都市报纸强调她城市女人这一身份，她是现代化的受益者，时尚、美丽且诱人。影片中的她也像个女妖时时刻刻魅惑着人们去往城市，而人们往往难以自持。

于是乎，二元对立便在这两位女性身上建构起来，片中农妇人所代表乡村和丽人所代表城市之间的冲突是我们无法忽视的。农妇人的质朴纯真，城市女人的娇媚妖艳，分别将乡村与城市的特点具像化，促成身后所代表的两大生活形式的戏剧性碰撞。

乡村生活如月光般皎洁，宁静而美好。在仆人对两位主人公过去生活追忆感叹的画面中，女人相夫教子，男人耕作劳动，闲暇时一家人围坐在乡间草丛中其乐融融，是那么无忧无虑，两人也是那么亲密无间。这便是田园生活的极大好处，人们能享受自然的乐趣，家庭生活也是幸福祥和。而与之相对立的城市生活的现代化，像日光一样夺目，随之而来的火车鸣笛声却尖锐刺穿原有的平静。男主角的移情别恋，女主角的垂泪悲苦，家庭的分崩离析，始作俑者便是那城市来的不速之客。我们不难看出导演对两种生活模式取向的明显倾向，撇开影片来谈，这也许和二次工业革命时导演生活的德国环境严重污染有关，那时人们对现代化的态度普遍由积极转为忧虑，这种环境焦虑也让人们对原始的乡村生活有了更加的向往。城市女人为了自己和男主人公私会提议杀害乡村妇人，会利用性来安抚对方达到目的，你可以评价她不择手段工于心计，无独有偶，现代化也为了达到目的不惜牺牲环境，而乡村便如农妇一样承受着、任其宰割，在蒸汽浓烟中被迫失去本色。但城市化的愿望图景再勾人也会暴露其冰冷无人性的本质，大衣就算能遮蔽城市女人的酮体也不能束缚住她伸出赤裸的双腿，道德的外衣被她摒弃，操行被她践踏在脚下，她在纵欲者和刽子手之间自由转换，可以柔情似水也能草菅人命，而这些，也是城市的代笔。

作为地球，男人既以自我为中心自转也绕着太阳公转。与妇人相比，他是何等的自私，也正是因为婚姻生活以他为主要，他能肆无忌惮地约会情人。在偷情时他会有怯意吗，不会，他是家庭支柱，就算他锈蚀得厉害也不会被更换，他的首要追求便是自身享乐。与此同时，城市女人对他的吸引是天生的，对他的诱惑是必然的，毕竟玉女能让人心生怜惜，而荡妇却让人心驰神往。只消主动献上几个香吻，她便能让男人沉溺在情欲之海中，同意谋杀自己良善的妻子。且除却性的引诱，其背后城市里纸醉金迷的生活也紧紧抓住了男人的心。当两人躺在草丛中透过雾气幻想都市生活，那里灯红酒绿热闹非凡，委实比与妻子苦守农场的单调生活迷人得多，所以上面提到的二元对立也呈现在男主的身上，在这一次较量中，城市化压倒性胜出，于是他应允了情人的提议，接过了求独活的芦草。

我们庆幸男人在最后时刻做了对的选择，但却思考不清什么是迫使他悬崖勒马的动力，是杀人的恐惧，是道德的限制，还是对妻子的爱，我们不得而知。也许黑狗的吠声拉回了他的理智，妻子畏惧的神情让他停手，而作为观者我只觉得这一转变似乎过于生硬，惧意、善意和爱意都表现不足，均难以支撑起这一强转折，实在是遗憾。

提到内容，电影描述了爱人回心转意后两人和好如初动人故事，在其中乡村最终比城市更胜一筹，男人选择回归田园的安逸生活，可我们却能窥探出其中的暗波涌动。先不论男人临时放弃谋杀计划动机的缺位，仅看他和妻子和好的过程便可见一斑：他们在城市中重拾爱意和激情。在火车上男人悔恨，在照相馆里两人亲吻，在游乐场中共舞，如此种种，都在城市这一背景下完成。不能否认现代化带来的新意为两人提供了心理上的刺激，事实上人们也容易将这种新环境的刺激误认为对爱人欲火重燃，退一步说即使两人真是重归于好，城市的作用也不容置疑。或许连导演自身都没想见到无论他对片中二元对立所持的天平如何倾斜，其中体现出的城市化到来与对人的吸引已成历史定局。或许他也对这一矛盾难有解决的良策，于是安排这两位女人深知对方的威胁却并未见面，而这结尾便是茂瑙知不可为而为之的聊以自慰罢了。

最后，我们回归现实，这样完满的结局能有多少呢，男人对妻子重回的激情能持续多久呢，我的答案是，它仅仅和日蚀时刻一样短暂而不可求。月球能多少次挡住太阳的光辉呢，几十年少有一次，日蚀时刻过后，地球仍沐浴阳光深受太阳吸引，月球仍复归黑暗围绕地球转动。而月球能做的，便是珍藏这一次机遇，好在下一个日蚀来临前自我慰藉度过永夜。

原文取自Patrick Keating的《THE DYNAMIC FRAME Camera Movement in Classical Hollywood》。本书在讨论《日出》这部电影时，是以20s中期德国电影对美国电影的影响为背景，以及美国电影人把摄影机运动视为鬼把戏（trick shots）的态度：是滑稽喜剧的专长而不符合严肃戏剧的高雅。在德国电影《最后一笑》《杂耍班》中，摄影机运动和角度让美国电影人大为震惊，这些创新的贡献不仅仅是技术上的，更深层的是从文化上的干预。移动摄影机不再是一个滑稽的把戏，而是成为艺术雄心的一种表达。静态戏剧和动态喜剧之间的对立也被打破。

以下为原文：

Sunrise

A great deal was riding on Sunrise—not just Fox’s investment but also Hollywood’s ever-evolving identity as an industry both American and international. Would Murnau assimilate to the American style, devising unusual angles to add “kick” to the story? Or would the German director continue to explore the semisubjective realm with a style that had inspired critics to reach for comparisons to Cezanne and Picasso? Murnau had promised to make a film with American virtues: speed, pep, initiative. The finished film belies this promise: Sunrise is slow and serious, with characters notably lacking in drive. The story is about a rural couple, simply called the Man and the Wife (George O’Brien and Janet Gaynor). The evil Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston) convinces the Man to kill his wife in a staged boating accident. He cannot go through with the murder, and, overcome with guilt, he follows his wife to the city, where he slowly regains her trust. Whereas many Hollywood films emphasize external action, the conflict here is almost entirely internal: the Man must rediscover his love for his wife, and the Wife must recognize that his conversion is sincere. This minimal plot leaves ample room for emotional expression.

To tell this tale, Murnau used almost every cinematic device available, from set design and acting to lighting and camera movement. As in The Last Laugh, Murnau explored the ambiguous territory of the semisubjective. In one celebrated seTuence, the Man walks through the marshes to visit with the Woman from the City. Cinematographers Rosher and Struss placed the camera on a platform suspended from tracks specially built into the studio’s ceiling, using motors to aid the shot’s operator, Struss, by lifting the camera platform up and down as it moved forward. 58 For all the shot’s technical bravado, its real interest lies in its shifts from external to internal and back again. The camera starts out by following the Man from behind and then tracks with him in profile after he makes a turn to go through some trees (fig. 1.7a–b). Here, the mode is external but attached—we observe the Man from the outside, but we discover the space as he discovers it. When the Man approaches the lens (fig. 1.7c), the camera pans to the left and dollies forward, pushing through some branches to discover the Woman from the City (fig. 1.7d). 59 For a brief moment, it appears that the film has entered a subjective mode, representing what the Man sees through his own eyes. The Woman turns her head. Perhaps she will look directly at the camera, as if welcoming the Man’s arrivalbut, no, her gaze crosses past the lens, and the bored look on her face indicates that the Man has not yet arrived. First attached and then subjective, the mode becomes nonsubjective and nonattached, showing an event that the Man cannot see yet. A moment later the Woman looks offscreen again, this time recognizing that the Man is approaching. When he enters the screen from off-left, it is a further perceptual surprise: the last time we saw him, he was off-right. The Man and the Woman kiss, and the shot comes to an end. In a lecture in 1928, Struss described this shot in terms that reflect its ambiguity. His statement, “Here we move with the man and his thoughts,” evoked a subjective interpretation of the image, but later he claimed, “We seem to be surreptitiously watching the love scenes,” as if the camera had adopted the perspective of an unseen observer. 60

1.7 In Sunrise, the camera follows the Man as he walks through the marsh; later, the camera appears to look through his eyes.

Other shots extend this semisubjective approach. In The Last Laugh, Murnau had placed his camera on a rotating platform to create the effect of the world spinning around the porter. In Sunrise, Murnau designed an ingenious variation on this strategy, depicting the twists and turns of a trolley ride. The first part of the seTuence was photographed on a trolley path built alongside Lake Arrowhead; the rest was shot on another constructed line that circled into Rochus Gliese’s enormous false-perspective city set on the Fox lot. 61 One shot shows the Wife huddling in the corner of the car. We can barely see her face, but the trolley veers right and then left, showing us tracks, a worker on a bicycle, a factory, and other images indicating that she is reaching the edge of the city (fig. 1.8a–b). The unpredictable swaying of the trolley expresses her emotional state—her terrified confusion about her husband’s newly revealed capacity for violence and betrayal. Meanwhile, Murnau uses the trolley’s movement to comment on the inevitability of modernity: these two peasants have no control over the trolley car, and they must stand by passively while the background changes from the countryside to the city, a change in landscape that will render their peasant lifestyle obsolete.

In her insightful analysis of the film, Caitlin McGrath has situated Murnau’s shots within a longer tradition of camera movement stretching back to the cinema of attractions, as in Bitzer’s subway film in 1904 (fig. 1.1). 62 Another proximate comparison is the trolley scene from girl Shy. There, the Boy treats the world as a series of obstacles to be overcome, commandeering a trolley car to get to his destination as Tuickly as possible. In Sunrise, the movement of the trolley does little to advance the goals of either character, who are merely passengers on a journey they cannot control. In one sense, girl Shy does a better job integrating story and shot: the action on the trolley serves to advance the protagonist’s goal. In another sense, Sunrise is the more fully integrated of the two. girl Shy briefly abandons the Boy to deliver a gag about the drunkard’s confusion. Sunrise lingers on the passage of the trolley because its swaying motions serve to express the Wife’s state of mind. Every swerve is expressive.

1.8 The Wife stands Tuietly on the trolley as the landscape changes behind her.

The latter film further develops its characterization of the modern city in a pair of seTuences showing the couple crossing the dangerous street. In the first seTuence, the camera is on a dolly following the Wife (probably a stunt double) as she walks from the trolley to the curb; halfway through the shot, the Man grabs the Wife and walks with her the rest of the way. Several cars zip by in the foreground and background, just missing the couple—and the camera, which is crossing the street as well (fig. 1.9a–b). In the second seTuence, the Man and the Wife have reconciled, and they gaze into each other’s eyes as they cross the busy street again (fig. 1.10a). They are utterly oblivious to the traffic, which dissolves away to become a pastoral meadow, as if this peasant couple has rediscovered the country in the heart of the city (fig. 1.10b). Whereas the first seTuence unfolds in fast motion as if it were a slapstick stunt, the second seTuence is a composite, using a traveling-matte effect that combines three distinct layers in a single shot: a foreground layer with cars passing by closely; a background layer dissolving from the city to the country; and a middleground layer showing the lovers walking while the camera follows on a dolly. Each layer was shot separately, then printed onto a separate piece of film. 63

1.9 The camera follows first the Wife as she begins to cross the street and then the Man and the Wife as they scramble across it.

This moment of joy does not mean that the film endorses the city and its values of consumerism, pleasure, and distraction. The urban citizens constantly remind the Man and the Wife that they are peasants; it is their acceptance of this identity that allows them to reaffirm their values. When they kiss in the middle of traffic, their love provides an escape from the modern city, even as the traffic bears down upon them. The visual contrast between the bumping dolly of the first seTuence and the traveling matte of the second develops the thematic shift. When the camera follows the Wife and the Man as they scramble across the street, their movements are so erratic that the couple never stays in the center of the frame. There is instead an oscillation from right to left as the couple jogs back and forth to escape the traffic. Later the traveling-matte effect locks the couple in the center of the frame, even though they are walking the whole time. The city around them buzzes with activity; the couple has become a symbol of stability.

1.10 Later, a traveling matte shows the Man and the Wife in traffic; the urban background dissolves into a pastoral scene.

Far from making a film with speed, pep, and initiative, Murnau tells a story criticizing those very values. Instead of delivering the occasional nonnarrative “kick,” the moving camera expresses the characters’ emotions while commenting on the ephemeral delights and the disorienting emptiness of modern life. The director’s longtime booster Maurice Kann raved about the film, seeing it as the fulfillment of The Last Laugh’s promising experiments with the representation of subjectivity: “Murnau has succeeded in boring his camera lens into the very brain of his players and shows you in picture form the thoughts that surge through their heads.” 64 Other critics commented on the film’s internationalism—its hybrid mixture of European aesthetics with a Hollywood budget. Pare Lorentz—then a film critic, later an esteemed documentarian—thought that the German–American mixture was a failure. He praised the “breathtaking photography” and the “perfect” first fifteen minutes, but he argued that the extended seTuence in the city contained too many gags, which had been added to entertain the “chocolate-sundae audience.” 65 European artistry had given way to slapstick trickery. Variety’s critic wrote more favorably that the film was “made in this country, but produced after the best manner of the German school.” 66 Moving Picture World noticed the film’s “continental flavor,” while commenting wryly on the association between national style and cultural status: “Coming from abroad, this production would be hailed by critics as a triumph. Even with the American label they are forced to give it grudging praise.” 67 Whereas Lorentz denounced the film for including too many concessions to the American audience, Variety and World positioned the film as a fascinating hybrid, a European artwork made in Los Angeles.

In the end, Sunrise struggled at the box office, and Murnau’s own career at Fox took a downward turn. 68 He experienced less support and more constraints on his remaining two films for the studio: the lost film Four Devils (1928) and the smaller-scale film City Girl (1930), both designed as nondialogue pictures, and both turned into part-talkies with added seTuences not directed by Murnau. 69 But Murnau’s impact was undeniable. As Janet Bergstrom reports, “[A] sign of William Fox’s appreciation of the artistic Tuality of Murnau’s films was that he encouraged his top directors to work in the same dark, visually expressive style.” 70 She lists several examples of Fox films made in Murnau’s style, including 7th Heaven (1927) and Street Angel (1928) by Frank Borzage, Fazil (1928) by Howard Hawks, The Red Dance (1928) by Raoul Walsh, and Mother Machree (1928) and Four Sons (1928) by John Ford. Other examples from the studio might include East Side, West Side (1927) and Frozen -ustice (1929) by Allan Dwan as well as Paid to Love (1927) by Hawks and Hangman’s House (1928) by Ford.

Outside Fox Studios, there is evidence that the trend toward unusual angles started well before Sunrise was released. In The Eagle (1925), the camera, suspended from a bridge stretched between two dollies, moves backward across a table, appearing to pass through several solid objects along the way. Director Clarence Brown explained, “We had prop boys putting candelabra in place just before the camera picked them up.” 71 An article in Film Daily in 1925 reports that cinematographer J. Roy Hunt used a handheld gyroscopic camera, inspired by The Last Laugh, to photograph The Manicure *irl, a lost film directed by Frank Tuttle. 72 The following year Maurice Kann spotted the influence of Variety in two other Famous Players–Lasky films: Victor Fleming’s MantraS and William Wellman’s You Never Know Women. Kann even gave credit to the cinematographers: Jimmy (James Wong) Howe and Victor Milner, respectively. 73 Less fortunate was Michael Curtiz, the Hungarian-born director beginning his long career at Warner Bros. His American debut, The Third Degree (1926), earned a skeptical review from Gilbert Seldes, who worried that directors were abusing the innovations of Variety. 74 PhotoSlay also denounced Curtiz’s film, noting that it was “filled with German camera-angles that don’t mean a thing.” 75 Another fan magazine complained, “The German films have caused our directors to become excited over the odd effects to be obtained by photographing scenes from unusual angles.” 76 An article in Motion Picture Classic declared that camera angles were “the bunk” and blamed the critics for heaping praise on European films when they employed the same “trick photography” that Americans had been doing for years. 77 The critics gave voice to a widely shared worry. Hollywood studios had the resources to copy the latest techniTues, either by hiring European personnel or by imitating their manner; what they needed to do was prove that they could use those techniTues in a meaningful way.

NOTES

58. Richard Koszarski discusses this shot in “The Cinematographer,” in New York to Hollywood: The PhotograShy of Karl Struss, ed. Barbara McCandless, Bonnie Yochelson, and Richard Koszarski (Fort Worth, TX: Amon Carter Museum, 1995), 177.

59. Struss claimed that the suspended dolly had a “wedge shaped thing” on the front to push the foliage out of the way (interview in Scott Eyman, Five American CinematograShers [Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1987], 9).

60. Karl Struss, “Dramatic Cinematography,” Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers 12, no. 34 (October 1928): 318. 61. Susan Harvith and John Harvith, Karl Struss: Man with a Camera (Bloomsfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Academy of Art, 1976), 15.

62. Caitlin McGrath, “Captivating Motion: Late–Silent Film SeTuences of Perception in the Modern Urban Environment,” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2010, 222.

63. For more information on this shot, see Murnau, Borzage, and Fox, DVD box set.

64. Maurice Kann, “Sunrise and Movietone,” Film Daily, September 25, 1927, 4.

65. Pare Lorentz, “The Stillborn Art” (1928), in Lorentz on Film: Movies, 19271941 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986), 25.

66. “Rush.,” “Sunrise,” Variety, September 28, 1927, 21.

67. “Sunrise,” Moving Picture World 88, no. 5 (October 1, 1927): 312.

68. Donald Crafton reports that Sunrise “sank like a stone” in New York after a strong opening. Its run at the Cathay Circle Theatre in Los Angeles was more successful (The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound, 192–1931 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997], 525–527).

69. Janet Bergstrom carefully details the making of both films in “Murnau in America: Chronicle of Lost Films,” Film History 14, nos. 3–4 (2002): 430–460.

70. Bergstrom, William Fox Presents F. W. Murnau and Frank Borzage, 10.

71. Clarence Brown, Tuoted in Brownlow, The Parade’s *one By … , 146. A decade later, the director repeated the trick in Anna Karenina (1935).

72. “The Gyroscopic Camera and Future Production Possibilities,” Film Daily, June 7, 1925, 5.

73. Maurice Kann, “Fred Thomson,” Film Daily, July 14, 1926, 1, and Maurice Kann, “More Pictures,” Film Daily, July 15, 1926, 1. Elsewhere, a fan commented on the fact that You Never Know Women copied its angles from Variety (Richard Roland, “What the Foreigners Have Done for Us,” PicturePlay Magazine 26, no. 1 [March 1927]: 12). Largely conventional, MantraS (1926) featured one spectacular montage showing a dynamic trip from the country to the city.

74. Gilbert Seldes, “Camera Angles,” New ReSublic 50, no. 640 (March 9, 1927): 72–73.

75. “The Shadow Stage,” PhotoSlay 31, no. 4 (March 1927): 94.

76. Ken Chamberlain, “Camera Angles,” Motion Picture 23, no. 3 (April 1927):

25. The tone of the article is mocking, accompanied by four cartoons depicting four bizarre techniTues.

77. Harold R. Hall, “Camera Angles—the Bunk,” Motion Picture Classic 24, no. 6 (February 1927): 18, 79.