Saturday saw me trudging through dark and rain-slicked streets to Stockbridge Parish Church, to see SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS with a glass of wine and musical accompaniment by the Jane Gardner Quartet. I’d only seen them in their trio form, I think — adding a cello made their always excellent music even richer.
What to say about this film? It had been some years since I’d seen it, and it held up brilliantly. By any rational standard, Janet Gaynor’s character is a bit of a drip in a bad wig, and George O’Brien is an irredeemable lout. But if we take it as a fable — or a song — that doesn’t matter. Both stars are luminous and have some of the best closeups of the silent era — shots in which lighting, performance, physiognomy and the mysterious quality known as photogenie combine to form animate icons.
Oh, I can declare that I finally made sense of the plot. Various persons over the decades have asked why O’Brien even thinks he needs to murder his wife. And why does the girl from the city require it of him?
I’d never paid much attention to the stuff where the villagers gossip about O’Brien selling off his livestock to moneylenders — one shouldn’t pay attention to village gossip — presumably to buy gifts for the city girl. So, let’s assume that this vamp’s intentions are not to settle down in the suburbs with her hunky farmer, but to strip him of assets and move on. She’s already begun this. There must be compelling reasons why O’Brien is unable to sell off the farm entire. It may be in his wife’s name, or partially so. We might also imagine that he’d have to pay alimony (and child support, but he seems to have wholly forgotten his infant child). To make this completely clear, we’d only need an additional intertitle, but in the process of adapting Hermann Sudermann’s theme into Carl Mayer’s scenario and explicating that via Katherine Hilliker and H.H. Caldwell titles, the explanation evidently got dropped.
It doesn’t much matter, because again, this is a fable (or song) and normal people watching it don’t wonder about that stuff.
What else? I’d forgotten that Arthur Housman, comedy drunk from several Laurel & Hardy films, is in this, as an “obtrusive gentleman,” i.e. a masher. At least he’s sober this time. Proving that all things connect to Laurel & Hardy if you look hard enough. Also, pre-code mangargoyle hybrid Clarence Wilson in one shot (below right image, left of frame).
There is also a dog. He comes bounding after the protagonists as they set sail on their fateful voyage, attempting a bit of Rin Tin Tin rescue business, driven by some canine sixth sense. And I wondered, is he Zimbo? Zimbo the dog who plays Homo the wolf in the same year and studio‘s THE MAN WHO LAUGHS? Both dogs are Alsatians and both swim. I guess it ought to be possible to compare their markings (though the role of Homo may have required a bit of strategic dyeing as part of the lupine drag) but I’m not going to do that. I’m just going to say Probably Zimbo, and also, can a proper film historian confirm this?
I chatted to Jane beforehand about the movie and its original Fox Movietone score, which we both said we liked, especially the oboe which stands in for O’Brien’s voice as he searches the waters for his missing wife. Jane did not reveal her secret plan.
When the scene appeared in the film, shivers ran up, down and across my spine, as percussionist Hazel Morrison let out a plaintive wail in synch with O’Brien’s onscreen cry. The effect of a man calling for his wife, voiced by a woman (in the magnificent reverberant acoustics of the church) was stunning. Exact enough to make sense, oblique enough to be poetic rather than literal. The very thing all artists are all after, all the time, probably.