VOTE: Was 'Sunrise' really Oscar's first best picture?

Tom,
You have had a lot of well-written and reasoned responses to your initial article stating why Sunrise is so highly regarded. Surely it is your duty to respond to these posts and not just to a tiny minority that you feel are insulting. Can you please explain (without calling me a nazi or suggesting I have some sort of agenda) which of the following explanations is valid?:
1) You were simply not aware of the artistic acomplishments that Murnau made with Sunrise when you wrote your piece
2) You are aware of the overwhelming critical consensus but disagree and don't think Sunrise was artistically shot and don't believe it was an insiration to generations of the greatest film-makers of the last 80 years
3) You agree that it was beautifully shot and it was artistically pioneering but you think that these facts are unimportant compared to the plot, which you feel is cheesy

If the Mayer anecdote is true, seems like "Oscar Nazis" should be stumping for "The Crowd" to be belatedly recognized as the first Best Picture winner. But I don't get how any of this is a "controversy." The Academy chose to honor two pictures in similar but separate categories. Historical accuracy (which was apparently thrown out the window upon the "Wings" rerelease in 1930) should dictate that the original distinctions be preserved. From a marketing standpoint, the DVDs for both films should just say ACADEMY AWARD WINNER, with the exact name of the category in parentheses or something. You know, the truth.

FWIW, I agree with the majority that "Sunrise" is one of the greatest films ever made, and I think "Wings" is a hellaciously entertaining movie that also holds up well. Seems like the Oscars have been torn between popcorn and prestige since the beginning. I'm kinda surprised they stopped separating the two after only one year!

Tom--
Do us all a favor and stay away from a little French movie called L'Atalante.

Tom's replies are awesome if you imagine him hurling confetti and cackling each time he clicks "post".

We're in To Be or Not to Be? Drat, to be stuck in a remake of a masterpiece. But what you did to Murnau we are doing now to Poland (not David).

Evan: How can you say that I "failed in both your original posting and your subsequent responses to acknowledge Sunrise's artistic and historical impact." Not true. Check out the original blog item. There I not only quote the initial positive review it got in Variety, but I note that it's now so highly regarded by film authorities that it ranks on the AFI Top 100 list. Personally, I don's eee its artistry, but I have fairly acknowledged that others endorse its greatness. Why are you blind to that?

My dearest Dellamorte: When we cast the Mel Brooks film adaptation of this melodrama of ours here, OK, you get to be Himmler. As long as I get to be Peggy Sue.

Ignoring Godwin's Law for a second (hard, that), Der Fuhrer would have to be Pauline Kael, right? I was surely a Kael youth, though in this analogy, I'd love to be Himmler.

Kent nailed it, it's about the fact that if you're going to take on a sacred cow, you have to bring some A game. I would love to read your analysis of Peggy Sue. And then I can consult with the hive mind collective and see what I think about what you think. I've always thought you have to meet most films on some halfway ground, you have to be lulled into their cadence, and it appears that you didn't let Sunrise work it's magic on you. The best viewing I had of the film was in a theater, but that can be said of most films. I'm not going to invoke lists, or anything like that, they're a silly measure of what is good, but I think what people are flipping out about is that most people who've actively sought out Sunrise appreciate its language of cinema, the command, and that you didn't enjoy that and feel the need to use Titanic or Peggy Sue to belittle it is the height of - to tweak your term - cheese wizary.

Tom, although it is true that many of the people on this board have perhaps unfairly attacked your taste and credentials, they have also raised a number of relevant points regarding Sunrise's artistic merit and place in film history. In response, you have ignored all of these arguments and responded solely to a segment of posters who have questioned your professionalism, grouping everyone under the label of "Film Nazis". You also mentioned in one of your posts that your objective in writing this article was to state your opinion strongly, which you certainly did. Correct me if I am wrong, but I was always under the impression that the role of an editorial is not simply to express yourself strongly but to convince people why your opinion is correct. Hence, if Sunrise is the subject of your piece, it is in fact crucial that you provide a social and critical context, if only in passing. This does not mean that every film you reference, in the interest of parity, should receive equal treatment. It means actually doing justice to the film you have chosen as the subject of your appraisal. But to return to my first point, you have failed in both your original posting and your subsequent responses to acknowledge Sunrise's artistic and historical impact. Many people have cited its virtuosic, groundbreaking use of camera movement and expressionistic art design. I will add to this its use of depth of field, which in scenes like the famous bus ride, creates the sense of a world that extends beyond the realm of the narrative. What are your thoughts on these points, Tom? Unfortunately, it seems you are more interested in stating your opinion "strongly"--an opinion that now groups everyone on this board under the childish heading of Film Nazis.

Well, I sure am happy you're enjoying your five-star food, Dellamorte, though I'm sorry for you that you must squirt it out of the nozzle of a can purchased at Kwiki-Mart. Very inconvenient. Someday when I am not so weary of dodging Nazi bullets I must regale you with my expanded theory about why "Peggy Sue" is a masterpiece -- and it is. But that's probably a waste of time since the Fuhrer told you THAT is Cheez-Whiz.

I am totally a hipster. And of course I disagree with you. What I think is great about this article is how proud Mr. O'Neil is of his aggressively pedestrian taste. You're basically saying "F**k this five star food, I'm going to McDonalds. FACE."

As I was talking to my girlfriend (she's a model for American Apparel) in our cloud of perpetual Parliament smoke, we were talking about how Oscars, Box Office, and Best Of lists are the bane of true film lovers. Then we bought some ironic T-shirts, watched Mouchette, Deep Red, and then The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies. And then we played Rock Band and had sex. She got 100% on Gimme Shelter.

I would like to see mroe articles about films that are overrated by you. Please do Grand Illusion next.

Well, film Nazis have not disappointed me, that's for sure. As usual, you must come out blasting at someone personally if they don't goosestep behind your opinion. You can't just keep the focus on the movie and a discussion of clashing opinion. You have to make it personal. You have to get petty, hostile and hysterical --- because, well, that's how thugs operate and that's how their party orthodoxy is maintained. That behavior reveals a lot about the film Nazis and it tells us how seriously we should take their opinions.

I wouldn't be so hard on Tom if he hadn't (1) asked us to vote and comment on this piece, and then (2) personally attached us as snobs and Nazis.

Having called us Nazis (simply for explaining which of the two films we preferred, which is exactly what he asked us to do), he then complained about the "vile" language and hysterical attacks that were made on him. I guess calling someone a Nazi for liking one movie over another is not vile and hysterical.

Tom applies one set of rules to himself, and a different set of rules to others. He deserves all the criticism he gets.

DON"T BE SO HARD on Tom O'Neil. We ALL have bad days. Talk about tragedies: I am still haunted today by the knowledge that I once turned down one of gay porn's most famous and HOT stars–and now I'll never have that opportunity again! No matter how many other hot gay porn stars (and wannabes) I console myself with as often as I can–will the pain NEVER go away?!

This article is full of factual misinformation.
Murnau is NOT "chiefly remembered today for the silent Nosferatu". His most famous films are "The Last Laugh" and "Sunrise". These films are famous for showing the film world what could be done with the moving camera. They have influenced nearly every later film in which a mobile camera plays a leading role.
Murnau is NOT the subject of a growing modern "cult". Murnau became famous in the 1920's, when his films electrified filmmakers around the world. John Ford wrote an article saying that Sunrise was the greatest film ever made, and took a trip to Germany to meet with Murnau. Filmmakers like Frank Borzage, King Vidor and Alfred Hitchcock were directly influenced by Murnau. We wouldn't have "Rear Window" and its moving crane, it if weren't for "The Last Laugh". Fritz Lang was the chief speaker at Murnau's funeral. "Sunise" was treated essentially as the "How To Make a Film Manual" for a generation of directors.
Why is the Los Angeles Times spreading misinformation about film history? Isn't the film industry of vital importance to Lose Angeles - and the United States?
This article is a disgrace to journalism, and the reputation of the Times.

One point that may have been missed... if you've only just seen Sunrise, it seems to me unlikely you've EVER seen 7th Heaven and The Last Command (which I'm sure you'd find at least as "schmaltzy"), and yet you have no hesitation in proclaiming The Jazz Singer to be superior. I wonder what your powerful media employers would think of a critic who opines on films without seeing them. I'll go further. I see no evidence from this piece that you've actually seen Wings. If you have, then the total lack of original insight you offer is to be condemned. If you haven't, then your entire article is dishonest as well as asinine. (If you'd seen it, I don't see how you could fail to have noticed that IT'S A WEEPIE TOO!)

Wow!! Why is anyone evn bothering to comment on Mr. O'Neil's post? When a person is so clueless about the artistic merits of films and is so off the mark, one can only feel pity for said person. And anyway, the man calls Peggy Sue Got Married and Titanic two of his all-time favourite films !!??? This is definitely not a person to be taken seriously in any artistic critical aspect whatsoever. Sunrise is one of my five favourite films and though I silently scoff at those who disagree (everyone is entitled to his/her opinion and just the fact that everyone has different opinions is a wonderful thing) to so callously dismiss Sunrise why simultaneously toting a film as commonplace and pedestrian as Titanic...wow, I am blown away. But then, like I stated above, why should anyone even bother commenting on all this? Perhaps I just can't help myself.

Tom, are you even an adult? This piece is childlike in its shrillness and reductive, simplistic thinking. And don't wave your resume around like it means anything, because upon closer inspection of said resume you are closer to a hired mouthpiece for Hollywood product than someone who deeply, generously loves cinema.

By the way, Tom -- I have some trouble with your characterization of Sunrise fans as "Oscar Nazis".

You introduced a debate about which of two films recognized by the Academy in 1927-28 really deserves to be called Oscar's best picture for the year. Both films were recognized by the Academy. You ask us to comment on which we think is better, and then when we do, WE get called Oscar snobs because we disagree with your choice of the OTHER film???? Huh?????

How are you NOT an Oscar snob when you choose the film that, for 80 years, has carried the designation of the first film to win the Best Picture Oscar?????

For people who don't like Tom's opinions, just take comfort in the fact that he uttered this shudder/gasp inducing line: "On my top 10 list of fave pix of all time are "Peggy Sue Got Married" and "Titanic." "!!! So don't take him so seriously. By just looking at 2 movies in his top ten list makes you realize that he isn't someone that everybody should hold in high esteem - especially about movies. Okay? He LUVVS Dreamgirls for Godsakes! Jesus! And I won't be surprised if he mentioned it again once Oscar season starts. So again, don't take Tom's word on what is a Great movie seriously. Cheers!

Wow. Scott, I'm with you. Defensive, anyone? This isn't about disagreeing with your opinion, Tom, or about personal attacks on your character. It's about the cavalier way you've dismissed a landmark film that you didn't bother to check out until now. If you make callow comments about a treasured film to a bunch of cinephiles, you can't cry as if someone stepped on your tail.

You've written some embarrassingly low-brow and cringe-inducing stuff before, Tom, but this article reaches a new low of stupidity for you. (And how a self-proclaimed "Oscar expert" has managed to go all these years without even bothering tos ee Murnau's masterpiece is beyond me.) By the way, Tom, the film is a fable -- it's narrative elements are intended to be simple.

Yoiu should read this article, although it's probably over your head.

http://hellonfriscobay.blogspot.com/2007/03/academys-train-not-taken.html

This only happens with movies...because they're such a "democratic medium," I guess.

Any comment on the (basically non-existent) value system used by the writer to render his judgment of SUNRISE is suddenly an "attack" by "film Nazis." And the only reasonable response, according to him, is to either agree or disagree, and keep the rest to yourself. A strange way to make a living.

Let's say that there was a literature blog. And that someone decided to write an opinion piece about MOBY-DICK, which he had recently read and found to be overrated. "Like, what's the big deal about MOBY-DICK?" Would anyone be surprised if he were eviscerated, piece by piece, with a deluge of responses? Of course not. But with movies, which are always getting this kind of "lighten up" treatment in the news media - when they're getting any treatment at all - it always seems to be good sport to offer up a blatant provocation like this one and then cry foul when the "elitists" attack.

I don't care what anybody thinks of SUNRISE, or WINGS, or what was or wasn't the Best Picture of 1927-28 or any other year. What I do care about is that the response is thought out and carefully considered. Which, any way you slice it, this one isn't. And I'm sorry, but anyone can respond any way they want.

Tom,

Seriously, film is more than just Box Office and fake awards. It's a visual language more than anything. Sunrise happens to represent a quantam leap in that language at the TIME IT WAS MADE. I personally think movie musicals are fairly idiotic as entertainment, however I can appreciate why some classic musicals are legitimately "great" films. No one is demanding you become a "cineaste" film snob, but for crying out loud, before you write something, make sure you know what you're talking about. Especially if you're writing about film history.

Sorry, but SUNRISE is one of the great visual and technical artistic achievements of the silent era, probably the last truly great one. And sorry, not all fans of this film are "Oscar Snobs", I frankly don't pay attention to the Oscars anymore, I just happen to know a great film when I see one, and SUNRISE is a great film, whereas WINGS has been largely forgotten for a reason.

Tom -- The position of your post of 7:47 am right after my post of 6:22 am makes it sound like you were responding to me.

For the record, I never posted any vile or hysterical messages or had anything deleted for that reason.

You should clarify who your message was directed at.

I agree it is possible to have arguments, challenge someone's views, tease and taunt each other a littie, etc. without being offensive or personally insulting.

Oooops. I think a few of your vile, bloody, irrational, hysterical assaults against me got deleted accidentally instead of cleared for posting. Sorry if yours was one of them. If you'd like to post your vicious comment again, please do so and we'll try to clear it, if it's printable, that is.

Tom -- If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

You hold yourself out as having expertise in the area of film. You post a long article about how the workmanlike but undistinguished Wings is better than Sunrise. You utterly fail to acknowledge for a moment that Sunrise does have an exalted place in film history. You invite people to post responses and comments and vote in a poll on the question. And then when people have the effrontery to challenge you, and point out that Sunrise is regarded as one of the great films in history and that it is somewhat shocking that you do not appear even to know this, you get petulant and complain that we have ganging up on you.

Grow up, ya baby!

Of course you are entitled to your opinion that Wings is better than Sunrise. But in doing so, it is incumbent on you to do more than dismiss an acknowledged classic like Sunrise with the simple, point-missing adjective "schmaltzy". The artistry of Sunrise is in how the film is made, and shot and edited. As you well know, many great films of the silent era had stories that could be called schmaltzy, but that does not pass as genuine insight or criticism regarding their artistic merit. If you want to criticize Sunrise, which you are absolutely free to do, than you have to consider and address the artistic accomplishment of the film, not just dismiss the narrative with one word and move on. It's like saying "Intolerance" is worthless because parts of it are "over-acted".

Tom, you constantly call people to task for their own opinions on these boards, and you constantly site historical information and awards and critical reaction to a film, but when the same is done to you, you behave as if people are picking on you.

I just finished reading this insightful think piece. Wow, when did Perez Hilton become a film critic?

Why do you have to barricade you behind your professional succes, Tom? Why does that even matter when people are responding to what you wrote? Why do you have to make it personal? Is it because people, who presents a critique on your piece, have a point? I see no other reason, really.

Whatever.

"Sunrise" would never have worked with a story less "schmaltzy". The simplicity of the story had to be there for the beauty of the presentation and the horror of the implications to speak thus more strongly. It's simple, sure, but it's wrapped in such an astonishing beauty and in an honesty, that does somewhat calls for banality.

Great question. One of two that have been debated at our place numerous times. A) Does the Sunrise DVD belong in our best picture collection? And B) When will someone release Cavalcade on DVD?

I have no agenda, Tom. I've stated that you have your right to your opinion, and that I simply wish you would acknowledge the reasons why people respect this film. But clearly your hyper-defensiveness has rendered you completely unwilling to see other viewpoints. Moving on...

This is a blog piece inviting you to say what you think was the best pic of that year. I give my view and state it strongly. Whenever I state my view of a film, I am not obliged to invoke the additional opinions of naysayers, too, and provide a greater historic context for every movie mentioned in an opinion-driven blog. Why don't you chastize me for not doing that for Jazz Singer or Wings, too? I'm sure there are top film authorities who disagree with my views of those movies -- shouldn't I have made a point to add those? The answer to that is obvious. You don't disagree with me on those films. But because you disagree with my view of Sunrise, you attack me professionally for not citing contrary views that you happen to agree with. What a concidence. Why aren't you demanding that I spell out all important views, pro and con, of all movies listed in this poll? You're just going on and on over the fact that I don't expound on an opinion you happen to agree with. Your agenda is exposed, sir.

Tom, I'm only questioning your journalistic credentials because your take-down of "Sunrise" does not take into account the reasons why the film has been lauded. If you had provided a balanced criticism of the film, including the reasons WHY it has been praised, and then followed that with your well-reasoned opinions and why you disagree, that I'd have no issue. Instead your review focuses on the aspects of the film which are completely secondary to its accomplishments, of which you make no mention.

It has nothing to do with you DARING to have a differing opinion. It's about providing a well reasoned and well researched argument, which is what journalistic criticism is about.

Again, you just don't choose to disagree with my opinion and stick to the subject of this film, you go to the extraordinary extent to indict my credentials as a journalist -- and whether I should even have this job -- because I DARE to have a contrary opinion to you and Roger Ebert. Or any other film writer. Or all others, for that matter. Wow. Using that logic, Roger Ebert should be fired and slammed if he ever dared to disagree with the majority opinion about a major movie. That's absurd. These are subjective judgments and we're all permitted to have our own. Calm down.

Wow Tom. You're just digging that hole deeper.

How do you "disagree" with the reality that Murnau created new techniques in filmmaking for Sunrise? This is not opinion--it is an undisputed fact that you would know if you did research.

I do hope your editors at the Times and all those other outlets that you probably might be on this weekend get a chance to read thru this article and your responses. And then I hope they can take a moment to go to rogerebert.com (Roger Ebert, yeah he's quite the Oscar nazi...) and run a search for "Sunrise" in his Great Movies archive. Then they can take a look at the facts that you "don't need" to know, so they can better know what type of a journalist you are (or rather, are not.)

Wait a second... is this some sort of
Hollywood gossip column that has decided to take a new tack?

Tom O'Neill, I don't think you're really playing fair by demaning a movie you know to be highly regarded and then crying out at the injustice of being attacked by "film Nazis." What did you expect, a series of thoughtful responses? If that's what you really wanted, then you should have written a thoughtful piece. Which I don't believe even you would claim you did.

I don't need to do research on why "Sunrise" is so highly regarded. I know that point of view and happen to disagree with it strongly. Isn't that permitted? Of course not. Groupthink is ruthlessly enforced in the film realm. That's what I mean when I refer to "Oscar Nazis" in the article above.

What do I really know about film? Not only does the LA Times hire me to dish about it, other media outlets showcase my views, too. Tune in to Fox Business Network this Friday morning and to CBS this Saturday morning to see me sound off on current releases. On Sunday I'll probably be on CNN -- don't know exactly what time of day yet. Might be on MSNBC early Sunday -- often I do that time slot. All this is just a small sampling of typical media that I do. Many outlets disagree with my views on this-or-that, but they seem to appreciate my honesty, basic knowledge and insights.. So I happen to think "Sunrise" is overrated. Big deal. Get over it. I also happen to think that "Grand Illusion" is, too. Can you resist the urge to assassinate me?

I think it doesn't have much to do with the oscars: I for one don't really care for them, Well of course when a film win it touch my curiosity. But it certainly isn't an authority on what I should think (if that does to anyone that's pretty sad) I just got around here with IMDb because seeing Sunrise on the first page got me interested. I have much respect for Murnau's films, such as Faust and Tabu. But I don't really like Nosferatu. Yeah. and it's ok!

I think the problem is more about how the opinion is expressed than what is the opinion. My guess is that some upset people around here may react differently for a similar opinion.

Tom, regarding your response, I for one do not criticize your right to dislike the film. I do criticize that you completely miss the fact that "Sunrise" broke new ground, in terms of visual style, effects and innovations that Murnau developed and showcased in that film.

Before you go onto the LA Times website saying things like "what's all this fuss about "Sunrise," eh?'", it might be a good idea to do a little research to understand why it's so highly regarded.

Wow. Amazing how many of you resort to nasty personal attacks against me just because I have a different estimation of this film. This is why I refer to Oscar and film Nazis. No alternative view will be tolerated and he who dares to voice one must be blasted so that groupthink is enfoced.

Why not direct your negativity toward the view I'm expressing that you disagree with? Put up a fierce fight about THAT.

I'm sure I know the answer to that.

Tom -- Sorry, I missed the end of what you were saying because your foot was in your mouth.

In 2002, the Sight and Sound/British Film Institute film critics poll (the most respected film critics poll in the world, which is done every ten years), polled a few hundred critics around the world on what are the greatest movies of all time. "Sunrise" was tied with The Battleship Potemkin as #7 on the list.

Yes, Tom, that is #7 on the list of greatest films ever made, according to an international poll of highly regarded film critics. (We're not talking Entertainment Weekly or the Hollywood Foreign Press here.)

"Wings" received a grand total of ... 0 votes.

Stick to Oscar politics and publicists Tom. Film criticism is not your forte.

For me, Sunrise is the greatest American silent film, a magnificent masterpiece,

Your facts are also wrong - Louis B. Mayer vetoed The Crowd not because he was embarassed to have an MGM film win, but because he hated The Crowd and its working-class anti-business sentiments.

Wow. Just wow. A "critic" who puts TITANIC and PEGGY SUE in his top ten list but disses on SUNRISE, one of the most beautiful expressionist works of art in cinema. Nuff said.

Sunrise is an amazing film on a thematic level, but when you consider the cruder film processing techniques of the day, it's even more amazing what Murnau was able to get away with.

I'd actually love to see the Academy bring the Best Artistic Quality of Production Oscar back into the fold.

Nice "take-down". Too bad you missed the whole point. You're so hung-up on the film's melodramatic elements that you completely ignore what made Sunrise so revolutionary to begin with -- its visual direction. Murnau's combination of expressionistic lighting and realism with his fluid moving camera are what make this film a landmark in the cinema. Maybe you should spend less time reading intertitles and more time actually watching what is on the screen.

Note: Chaplin's The Circus won a special Oscar for artistic genius. I will agree, though, that it should have won the competitive Oscar that year.

Yet another sad example of how the LA Times entertainment coverage has fallen into disrepute. Taking down one of the great screen classics as if it were some trite forgotten weeper.

Sad.

How can a critic at a major metropolitan newspaper write such an embarrassingly thin "critical analysis" of a major work of cinema? To say that Sunrise is merely melodramatic schmaltz completely ignores the leaps in cinematic technique that Murnau made in the film, like the revered early tracking shot, the in-camera dissolves, the incredible sets... I could go on. To not acknowledge these things and just pan it for being melodramatic (news flash: most silent cinema is melodramatic) is an embarrassment for you, and an embarrassment for the LA Times.

Sorry, but Sunrise = the best film of the silent era.

I'm must be in a minority here, but I have to agree - "Sunrise" is a big bunch of beautiful schmaltz, but not a great film. I've seen many silent movies over the years and "Sunrise" fits into that whole genre of rather corney, sentimental dramas that seemed old-fashioned when they were new - the kinds of movies that seemed to be ripped from the short story section of a popular women's magazine. Sure, it's beautifully done, but the cardboard characters and flimsy motivation really undercut it as film. "Wings" isn't any great film either - I like to think of it as the "Top Gun" of its day.

I'd vote for "The Last Command" as the best film of 1927-28. It's more complex visually and story-wise than the others; "The Crowd" always impresses me as being a bit didactic and emotionally flat.

Not liking a film is one thing but when an established masterpiece is taken to task by a critic from a major publication, I would expect to read some serious analysis of why the critical consensus is wrong. Mentioning cheese-wiz and saying you've only just watched it for the first time is like a reviewer at Rolling Stone saying "Hey, I just had my first listen of Dark Side of the Moon yesterday and I don't see what all the fuss is about, there are weird noises all over it and some of the tracks don't even have choruses!"

Is this a delayed April Fool's Day post? There is no way that the schmaltzy, embarrassing "The Jazz Singer" is better then "Sunrise", a true masterpeice in every single respect.

Sunrise is the best American film of 1927, deal with it.

The Jazz Singer? It's a very good movie, but it's just as run-of-the-mill as you make Sunrise out to be except that it has some talking sequences.

Sunrise tells a story. Yes, it may be sappy, but it's told so beautifully.

The Circus is a good Chaplin film, but uneven compared to his next two masterpieces. It's at least a lot better than the overrated The Gold Rush.

It's articles like these that seem to be so damn edgy on how they squash so-called lauded films. Maxim named It's a Wonderful Life as the worst Christmas movie.

You may write the articles, but everyone disagrees with you.

Defamer said what I think today much more eloquently than I could, so check it out. At least your readers are showing you that there's not even an argument here. I don't think it's a subjective opinion. I'm pretty sure you can objectively determine that SUNRISE is not only the greatest movie of those years, but one of the best best picture winners, period.

In trying to make yourself our to be a maverick thinker, you've only proven just how simple minded you are in this hatchet piece. It's as horrifyingly ill informed as Pauline Kael's infamous "Raising Kane" essay. Murnau was a poet, and to understand poetry you have to understand subtext and technique as well as subject and meaning, which I guess it beyond you. And with those qualities out of your grasp, I have to wonder how you managed to find yourself a post as a critic. But then, you explained it all when you listed two of your top ten faves. Give me Murnau over James Cameron any day of the year.

can't they just recognize both? as if it were a tie?

Oh, thank heavens we still have newspapers to bring us expert opinions instead of the ill-informed mouthing off of bloggers.

Your dismissal of SUNRISE in favor of the overripe cheese that really is WINGS is about what one could expect from anyone who lists TITANIC and PEGGY SUE among his all-time Ten Best.

Allright so you don't like Sunrise. It's okay! It happen to be one of my favourite film ever and maybe my most played DVD. But people can like it or not.

But seriously, WHAT? Jazz Singer better than all these silent films? It's mediocre! It is not because it made a technological progress popular that it have an "unfair advantage". Silent films aren't inferior films. You, sir, have wrote the worst sentence I've ever read so far this year.

Tom, this is a case of a movie less being about its story and more about the astonishing technique Murnau was able to employ to create images that still hold up today. I urge you to visit Roger Ebert's review for a better understanding of the film. His last paragraph is as follows:
"I imagine it is possible to see "Sunrise" for the first time and think it simplistic; to be amused that the academy could have honored it. But silent films had a language of their own; they aimed for the emotions, not the mind, and the best of them wanted to be, not a story, but an experience.
Murnau, raised in the dark shadows of expressionism, pushed his images as far as he could, forced them upon us, haunted us with them. The more you consider "Sunrise" the deeper it becomes -- not because the story grows any more subtle, but because you realize the real subject is the horror beneath the surface."

Perfectly said.

You're under no obligation to like "Sunrise," but the fact that you've never even bothered to see it until now indicates something about you. (Let's just say, to put it politely, that no one will ever consider you a "snob" or a "hipster.") The plot is hardly the point--the film's reputation rests on Murnau's poetic employment of the medium.

By the way, I believe the Academy has expunged the inclusion of "The Last Command" and "The Way of All Flesh" from their Best Production records for 1927-28. You should check into this.

Call me a clichéd cinemaphile, but Sunrise is DEFINITELY the best picture of 1927-1928. It is still one of the most beautiful films ever made, period. Murnau was a genius!