Could film be considered as just a spectacle?
Is narrative resolution necessary for a film to be successful?
Regarding both narrative and spectacle, are both required within a film?
The quote ‘film is just about spectacle; narrative resolution does not matter’ can be applied to the film ‘Sunrise’ made in 1927 by F.W. Murnau because of its use of narrative and character development but also due to its ground-breaking cinematography and editing, such as tracking shots, which were seen as a spectacle at this period of time.
To begin with, the film disagrees with the statement as intertitles are shown saying ‘sometimes bitter, sometimes sweet’. This supports the narrative resolution as they are used in order to highlight the main theme which is juxtaposition, and therefore introduce the narrative. By saying ‘bitter’ and ‘sweet’ it emphasises this point as they are obvious opposites. Furthermore, the film progresses to a high angle which shows people walking around a train station. Murnau opens with this so that he’s able to introduce the busy and industrial atmosphere of the city so that, later on, the audience is able to determine the contrast between country and city. Within this scene, you are looking at the people through the smoke of the train. This is done to create a sense foreboding, as if the lively people on the ground are hiding something from the audience.
On the other hand, Murnau introduces the spectacle side of the film when the camera moves on to show several settings and vehicles in a multiple exposure effect. One way this scene supports the statement is through the chaotic music. Accompanied with the rushing trains and crowded areas, the music almost creates a sense of confusion and unnecessary rushing. This could be related to the Mark Cousins interpretation that the city symbolises ‘speed and greed’ and how it juxtaposes the countries calm atmosphere. Furthermore, Murnau shows the transport and different settings, not to add to the narrative, but to bring across to the audience the rush of modernity at the time, with the developments in transport and people moving to the country.
However, Murnau once again goes back to conflicting with the statement when the camera moves to a medium shot of the woman of the city. This shot is done in order to add to the narrative and emphasise the idea that the woman from the city is the source of disequilibrium within the film. One way that this is shown is through the city woman’s actions. She begins by lighting a cigarette from a candle to the right of the shot. By doing this, it links how she is stealing the wife’s husband to how she is ‘stealing’ the light from the candle and therefore putting her in a criminal, cruel and selfish light. These traits are emphasised by how she spends a good deal of time going through all her countless clothes as if none of them are good enough for her, suggesting she is materialistic. However, you could argue that Murnau intensifies the use of mis-en-scene within this scene to add to the spectacle of the character. One way that this is done is through the way she is dressed in black clothing with black hair. Black typically symbolises darkness (and in some cases villainy), due to this, the city woman takes on these characteristics. Furthermore, her rushed movements could, once again, relate to Cousins idea of ‘speed and greed’ therefore highlighting the similarities between her and the city to the audience. This is also enhanced by his use of cinematography, for example, the low key lighting immediately creates a negative, quite depressing atmosphere which contrasts to the previous boat scene which is sunny and bright. This point could be developed to suggest that the woman is almost within her lair which the positivity of the countryside cannot touch.
On the other hand, when the camera moves to a medium shot of the family eating, Murnau uses it to continue to show the narrative resolution and develop the character of the city woman. For example, the shot shows a slanted table and lamp. This enhances the idea of disrupted equilibrium because of the city woman’s occupancy and the idea that she has caused this peculiar shot. This is emphasised by how she interrupts their dinner in order to clean her shoes and by how, the couple have quite forlorn and tired expressions, suggesting they are unable to resist the city woman and that she has control over them.
The camera then moves to a medium shot of the man sat at a dinner table. Once again, for this scene, Murnau wanted to introduce the character of the man and the wife, therefore focusing more on the narrative resolution. This is supported by how they are quite solitary within the frame therefore keeping the entire focus on them. In particular, the table is a stable and obvious part in the scene, which symbolises stability within his life. When the city woman calls, we see the man get up and rush to put his coat on which suggests he’s moving away from stability due to being enticed by the city woman. This is supported by how one can make a comparison to the city woman’s previously rushed movements, creating a sense of suspicion as to what the man is doing. These rushed movements could also suggest that the man is coming away from the country and towards the city, due to the ‘speed’. The scene then progresses to show a flash back which, in itself, enhances the narrative. The flash back is completely in high key lighting with the sun visible in the sky. By doing this it completely juxtaposes the room they were just in, suggesting that it was a happier, more idealised time.
Along with this, the camera then moves to a tracking shot following the man as he walks through the marsh. This was ground breaking camera work and was very impressive at this point in time. Due to this, the scene supports the statement especially as within this scene the mis-en-scene is functioning in such a way to almost induce fear and act as a spectacle for the audience. An example of this is when we see the man moving surprisingly slowly. This demonstrates to the audience the conflict in his mind as if the decision he has to make is making him physically struggle. Additionally, by having the fog surround the man it once again demonstrates the lack of clarity in his mind and that he’s obsessed with the city woman. The man then goes on to cross over a fence. Murnau uses this to show a threshold that the man is crossing, and show that he has left the boundaries of the country and gone to the city. This could be exaggerated to say that the man has crossed a mental barrier in his mind. The scene is also in a very low key lighting accompanied with quite eerie music, this keeps the constant feeling of mischief and fear as if they are up to no good. This idea is supported by the point of view shot which is looking through the trees. By having this shot, it suggests we are not meant to be seeing what we are shown, inducing excitement for the audience.
Next, the camera then moves to a medium wide shot of the city woman twirling a flower. This suggest that she is disregarding the country and therefore presents her as being ignorant. This also helps the narrative due to the development in her character. Along with this, when the man and the city woman meet up, Murnau uses intercutting highlights to show the wife crying while they are doing so. This creates empathy for the wife and shows the juxtaposition between the two. Additionally, when they continue to kiss, the man is shown looking up at the woman. Due to the position the woman has over the man it represents the positions of power and how she has control over him. This is elaborated when the camera starts coming closer and closer towards the two, which suggests that we are also being enticed by her. Once the woman suggests that the man comes with her to the city, images from the city appear with bright lights, creating a fun atmosphere. On the other hand, at this point, Murnau shifts the objective to create more of a spectacle for the audience rather than progress with the narrative, for example, he uses the pleasing aesthetics of the bright lights and dancing so that the audience are able to relate to the enjoyment that the characters are feeling. This could be elaborated to say that the impressive CGI that was used is also a part of it, due to it being ground-breaking technology. Furthermore, the city women goes on to stand up and start dancing, accompanied with the music of the band it presents the scene as being exciting and enjoyable. One could also say that the images are used in order to refer to the modernity at the time and what life was like in the city.
The camera then moves to a medium shot of the man lying down with water dissolved over it. By using the water it gives the impression that he is drowned in thought and creates a sense of foreboding due to the decision that he has to make. Next, the camera moves to a long shot, showing the country side covered in mist with no people. Murnau does this to intensify the narrative. This long shot contrasts to the bright, lively one that we saw before, giving the impression that the city woman has cast a spell over the village. Sunrise continues to disagree with the statement as the camera moves to a long shot of the doorway at which we can see the wife feeding the chickens. Due to the distance we are from the doorway, it’s as if it’s demonstrating to the audience the different mental state that the wife has compared to the man. This could be developed to suggest that there is an emotional distance developing between the two. Correspondingly, he continuously presents the wife as being a kind, nice person, demonstrated a lot through the high key lighting that she is always in. Due to this, the audience forms an emotional attachment to their relationship making the man’s decision even more intense and scary as they don’t want him to follow through. On the other hand, Sunrise does include some spectacles to provoke the audience in these scenes. For example, when it is edited to zoom in on the reeds, it’s quite developed filmmaking that Murnau has used, which would impress the audience.
In the next shot, Murnau uses an in frame dissolve to show the city women hugging the man. This expressionistic technique enables us to visibly see what the man is thinking and therefore highlight his obsession over her. However one could also say that she has control over him as he has been hypnotised. Overall, it creates an unsettling feeling for the audience due to the fact the man has to make the decision whether to kill his wife or not. Murnau uses the next shots to induce panic and fear as they know the man’s intentions. For example, by showing a dog barking and the baby stealing the hat it’s as if they know what’s going to happen and are trying to stop it. Furthermore, the man grabs the reeds with his thumbs in the centre as if he’s about to strangle someone, once again highlighting his intentions and/or plan to the audience.
Murnau shoots the following boat scene at a medium shot with the man’s back to the audience. By having the man’s back to the audience it presents him as being unpleasant or scary to look at and therefore intensifying this pinnacle moment in the film. In support of this, the man is hunched over with dark shadows underneath his eyes almost taking the appearance of Frankenstein. Due to this, it draws the audience’s attention towards horror mythology and the idea that he’s this supernatural monster and that there’s no hope for the wife. The camera then progresses to tilt up on a close up of the man’s hands and waist. Murnau purposefully does this in order to touch on the reoccurring motif of the man’s hands and how the audience has only seen them close up when he has the purpose of strangling. To elaborate, by doing this, it gives the impression he is now going to do the same to the wife. However this is shortly counteracted by the ringing of the bell, which is its own reoccurring motif, to signify the country. This could be developed so that the country is crying out to him in effort to stop him from killing his wife. Overall, Murnau shoots this scene in such a way as to act as a spectacle, because of the horror mythology and fearful atmosphere it creates an exciting/scary moment depending on the audiences preferences.
When in the city, the camera moves to a tracking shot as they walk through the traffic. Both the man and the wife are looking into each other’s eyes and not at the cars. This creates a comforting atmosphere and gives the impression that equilibrium has been restored. This is exaggerated when we see their surroundings change to a bright countryside. This transformation is Murnau’s way of almost putting the audience inside the couple’s heads in order to create a stronger attraction and therefore encourage the audience to bond with the couple. Martin Scorsese sums up this technique by saying that ‘subjective perceptions become objective reality’. This can be developed to say that Murnau is changing something that could have been debated into a factual thing e.g. what the couple are thinking. In particular, the bright lights and lively colours used in the mirage once again create an idealised surrounding, similar to the flash back before, therefore putting country as a whole in a similar light. Along with this, when the mirage ends, the couple are back in the city at a medium shot and the all the cars rush forwards at once. In this scene there’s is a lot of diegetic sound effects (like car horns) and, when accompanied by the sudden movements, it creates a chaotic contrast to the country mirage, this shocks the audience. Due to this, the audience is manipulated to point where they will always see the constant juxtaposition between the country and the city. However, I think that Marnau’s main aim in this scene is to create the narrative resolution and to demonstrate how the equilibrium has been restored.
In conclusion, I disagree with the statement because I feel that both the narrative and the spectacle become intertwined and are not interdependent of each other as the statement suggests. This results in the spectacle pushing the narrative to its resolution and therefore maximizing the audience experience. For example, the marsh scene. This is when we first learn of the man and city woman’s relationship, which eventually progresses to show the contrasts between the city woman and the wife. However, without the ground-breaking cinematographic heavy footsteps showing the conflict in his mind, the low key lighting of the marsh and the barrier of the fence, the audience wouldn’t have been manipulated to see the juxtaposition of good and evil, making the resolution of the entire film less effective.
Research
https://www.slideshare.net/ellesullivan310/sunrise-a-tale-of-two-humans-1927-micro-elements-analysis