VOTE: Was 'Sunrise' really Oscar's first best picture?
Last night I finally watched "Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans," the film at the heart of a huge Oscar controversy: Does it, not "Wings," deserve to be remembered as the first best picture winner? Many — indeed, probably most — Oscar snobs and hipsters insist, "Yes!"
There were actually two best-pic awards bestowed at the first Academy Awards ceremony for the eligibility period spanning 1927-28. One was for "best production," honoring "the most outstanding motion picture considering all elements that contribute to a picture's greatness." "Wings" won that — a b.o. hit about World War I aerial battles starring Buddy Rogers, Clara Bow and Gary Cooper and directed by William A. Wellman ("The High and the Mighty" and the 1937 version of "A Star Is Born"). Variety praised the film while noting that it buzzed with "bombing machines, captive balloons, smashes and crashes of all types."
However, the other, similar award was for best "artistic quality of production," honoring "the most artistic, unique and/or original motion picture without reference to cost or magnitude." "Sunrise" took that prize.
"Sunrise" is an unabashed soap opera about a farmer (George O'Brien) who falls for the charms of an evil city temptress (Margaret Livingston), who urges him to drown his innocent wife (Janet Gaynor) and mother of his adorable infant. It was one of the three films that earned Gaynor the first Oscar ever bestowed for best actress. The other two: "7th Heaven" and "Street Angel."
Variety hailed the "artistry" and "dramatic power" of "Sunrise," which was helmed by F.W. Murnau, who wasn't nominated for best director (neither was Wellman) and is chiefly remembered today for the silent classic "Nosferatu" (1922). "Sunrise" flopped at the box office, but the cult around it has grown so significantly through the years that, in 2007, it popped up for the first time ever on the American Film Institute's list of 100 greatest movies ever made, ranked at No. 82. "Wings" wasn't ranked at all.
Nowadays, all Oscar Nazis insist that we should fight for "Sunrise" to get its due and reverse the common misconception that the lowly "Wings" was the first best picture winner. After all, if "Sunrise" was the most "artistic" film, doesn't that mean it's really the best? Why does "Wings" get all the credit? It was merely the "best production."
Yes, but the criteria surrounding the latter award covered "all elements" of a film's greatness, presumably its artistry too.
So . . . enough! Which one's really best? As a self-respecting Oscarologist, I had to decide for myself!
I've seen "Wings" a few times and liked it OK. But now that I've viewed "Sunrise," I must concede: "Wings" soars by comparison. "Sunrise" is paper-thin, hilariously schmaltzy. All three primary characters are cartoonish clichés and their performances 3-inch slices of honeyed ham.
Mind you, I'm the kinda guy who'd normally side with the weepie. On my top 10 list of fave pix of all time are "Peggy Sue Got Married" and "Titanic." But I just can't shed a real tear when the farmer in "Sunrise" decides that he just — by golly! — can't off his sweet, dimpled wifey-pooh, after all. Nor could I cheer the scenes of the couple back together, all giddy smiles and kisses, posing for photos like newlyweds, dancing a happy peasant dance, joyous once he decided not to wring her scrawny little neck and hurl her over the side of the row boat.
What corn pone! Smothered in Cheez Whiz! "Wings" ain't Shakespeare or Scorsese, mind you, but it's better than that!
By the way, "Sunrise" wasn't the original winner of best artistic picture. No, no, no, "The Crowd" — King Vidor’s drama about an average New York couple’s struggle with daily hardships — won most votes from the Central Board of Judges, which was comprised of five cronies of Louis B. Mayer, who had created the academy as his private tool to crush the rising power of Hollywood labor unions.
But Mayer didn't want "Crowd" to win because it was produced by his own studio, MGM. That might tattle what everyone already knew: that this whole academy thing was his puppet organization. So he bullied the judges, yanked their strings, kept them up all night until they finally saw the light and ditched "Sunrise" for the alternative produced by Fox studio.
Other notable flicks up for the best pic awards included Gaynor's "7th Heaven," a romantic fantasy and b.o. smash ($2.5 million) that earned Frank Borzage the first Oscar for best director.
Two other best-pix nominees earned the best-actor trophy for Emil Jannings: Joseph von Sternberg's "The Last Command" starring Jannings as a Czarist army general reduced to poverty after the Bolshevik Revolution; in "The Way of All Flesh," he's a reputable man ruined by his sexual desires. "Flesh" is Victor Fleming's lost film, but enough reviews and descriptions survive to attest to its brilliance and justify its consideration as the best film that year.
Two other outstanding flicks were totally, and outrageously, ignored at the first Oscars. One was "The Circus" by a Hollywood rebel so loathed by Mayer and his industry cronies that the academy voided the three Oscar nominations earned by Charlie Chaplin's movie.
They also ignored what everyone really knew was the best picture of the year because they thought it had an unfair advantage over all of the silent pix nominated — that revolutionary megahit "Jazz Singer," which blasted through the sound barrier, trumpeting the future of film.
So . . . what's all this fuss about "Sunrise," eh?
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.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | April 17, 2008 at 07:47 AM
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.
Posted by: Scott | April 17, 2008 at 06:22 AM
I just finished reading this insightful think piece. Wow, when did Perez Hilton become a film critic?
Posted by: Brad Johnson | April 17, 2008 at 06:06 AM
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.
Posted by: Tomo | April 16, 2008 at 11:41 PM
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?
Posted by: Tony | April 16, 2008 at 11:04 PM
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...
Posted by: Todd Holmes | April 16, 2008 at 10:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | April 16, 2008 at 09:19 PM
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.
Posted by: Todd Holmes | April 16, 2008 at 08:40 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | April 16, 2008 at 08:07 PM
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.)
Posted by: Todd Holmes | April 16, 2008 at 07:53 PM
Wait a second... is this some sort of
Hollywood gossip column that has decided to take a new tack?
Posted by: Brandon | April 16, 2008 at 07:34 PM
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.
Posted by: Kent Jones | April 16, 2008 at 06:48 PM
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?
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | April 16, 2008 at 06:33 PM
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.
Posted by: Saturnm | April 16, 2008 at 06:16 PM
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.
Posted by: Todd Holmes | April 16, 2008 at 04:05 PM
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.
Posted by: Tom O'Neil | April 16, 2008 at 01:21 PM
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.
Posted by: Scott | April 16, 2008 at 12:36 PM
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.
Posted by: seanflynn | April 16, 2008 at 11:40 AM
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.
Posted by: christian | April 16, 2008 at 10:57 AM
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.
Posted by: Edward Havens | April 16, 2008 at 10:55 AM
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.
Posted by: Evan | April 16, 2008 at 10:04 AM
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.
Posted by: Joe Stemme | April 16, 2008 at 09:57 AM
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.
Posted by: Todd Holmes | April 16, 2008 at 09:36 AM
Sorry, but Sunrise = the best film of the silent era.
Posted by: Brent S | April 16, 2008 at 07:00 AM
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.
Posted by: riddle | April 16, 2008 at 06:48 AM