Andrew James
Film 3350/Cinema History 1
6 December 2018
Sunrise: A Film of Intentional Ambiguity
F.W. Murnau’s film Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans portrays a man (simply named “The Man”) caught in a love triangle with his wife (also simply named “The Wife”), and a seducing woman from the city (still simply named “Woman From the City”). The story revolves around The Man discovering who he truly wished to love, specifically his wife. The majority of the film is The Man reconnecting with his Wife after almost killing her in favor of the Woman From the City. While the Woman From the City is a pivotal character in the film, though she’s not shown as much as the Wife, the film is subtitled “A Song of Two Humans”, rather than a more inclusive three. This is a curious moniker. If you look simply at the surface level, “A Song of Two Humans” simply refers to the two main characters prominently featured, The Man and his Wife, and nothing else, but there is a deeper meaning to be discovered.
Claiming that “A Song of Two Humans” refers simply to the two characters that the film spends most of its time following neglects to answer why Murnau chose to call the film a “song”, or why he chose the scientific word “humans”, rather than a word more commonly used to refer to people in a social setting, such as “people”, “lovers”, or even “a man and a woman”. Murnau’s choice to include a subtitle and phrase it the way he did has a more complex meaning than just describing that it is a film about two characters.
In her book on the film for the British Film Institute, Lucy Fischer implies that Murnau’s word choice, especially the word “human” claims that “Murnau is, perhaps, hinting that romantic love is gender-neutral” , in reference to Murnau’s known homosexuality. While this may be the case, the subtitle goes deeper still.
An important aspect of the film’s subtitle is the specification of “two humans”. While “human” is anatomical in nature and ambiguous in itself, what’s more ambiguous is the number “two”. A surface-level analysis believes this refers to The Man and The Wife, but this is never specified. While this is the most plausible meaning of the number “two” in its usage here, it is important to note that this isn’t necessarily the meaning, as it’s not specified who the “two humans” are. Since it’s not specified, the two humans could be The Man and The Woman from the City, or The Wife and The Woman From The City.
Perhaps the least ambiguous word in the film’s subtitle is “song”. Since the story is romantic in nature, it would be natural to choose a title that is more appealing than simply “story”. Murnau chose the word “song” because of its romantic connotation. While it could be a reference to the Biblical romance, The Song of Songs (also known as the Song of Solomon), it could also simply be a word used to associatively connote beauty in referring to both music and romance at the same time.
One cannot discuss Sunrise’s ambiguity in the subtitle without discussing the equally ambiguous trio of main characters’ names, The Man, The Wife, and The Woman from the City. Again, looking at the surface level, it appears that the simple answer is that the characters were ambiguously named because there was no dialogue and no need to use real names, but Murnau’s filmography proves this isn’t the case, as multiple of his films had named characters, and multiple others chose to remain ambiguous. Since most of F.W. Murnau’s filmography consists of silent films, refraining from giving specific names to characters was done by choice. Sunrise is a film of intentional ambiguity, specifically regarding the characters’ names and the film’s subtitle. The question now must be asked; why? And what does it represent?
Another ambiguous aspect of the film is its setting. The Man and his Wife live in a village with European architecture and visit a city that feels more American. Along with this, the time period is somewhat curious too. It appears to be set in the present (1927), but this is only because of technology present in the film. Nothing in society was shown in the film that is specific to the mid 1920’s, except maybe the photography scene, which means that the film could take place at almost any time without severely altering the plot.
It seems apparent that Murnau intentionally made these aspects of the film ambiguous to use the characters as a representation of aspects of the human experience of life that can be applied to anyone, allowing for the film and the film’s characters to be interpreted in a number of ways.
Fischer’s argument about the characters is mainly one of society and sexuality, specifically with the two women. She says that “the [farm girl] is a familiar figure of supreme good and is associated with melodrama, whereas the [Woman From the City] is a nebulous figure tied to modernity” . Fischer establishes the Woman From the City as the seductress who enters into the man’s life to steal him away from his Wife , which inherently makes the Wife representative of something (or all that is) good and the Woman From the City something (or all that is) bad. This leaves their interpretation open to become anything good or bad respectively, but Fischer sticks with the more explicit meanings of sexuality and maternity.
The explicit meaning of sexuality and maternity for the Woman From the City and The Wife respectively that Fischer posits is certainly a valid argument, but the characters themselves are open for further or different interpretation due to their ambiguity, which allows them to be interpreted as overarching situations and concepts many, any, and all humans must reconcile with. Here the potential specific meaning, or meanings, of the film can be expounded upon.
Before moving on to potential specific meanings of the film, it must be noted that, while the film’s ambiguity allows for open interpretation, interpretations must fit into the social context of the time the film was produced. For example, if one wished to do so, one could interpret the film as a commentary on social media, with the Woman From the City representing the false images put out on social media, and The Wife representing the real world which we all must learn again to fall in love with. It’s an interesting thought, but Sunrise obviously isn’t about a digital world that wasn’t even thought of until decades after its release.
Because of its non-specific ambiguity, Sunrise could be considered a film about homosexuality, an important aspect of F.W. Murnau’s life. Fischer cites Wood in saying “relegating the City Woman… to the night and the marshes, Murnau was degrading his own sexual energies, under the overwhelming weight of the dominant sexual ideology” . The carnal Woman From the City could represent Murnau or anyone’s sexual desires that were widely considered carnal and sinful, and the maternal Wife could represent the cultural norm of monogamous heterosexuality which people are expected to conform to. It is curious, however, that, if the film is meant to be an allegory of homosexuality, and if Murnau was truly given unprecedented creative control , it wouldn’t exactly make sense for Murnau to portray the Woman From the City in such a negative light. If the film is meant to be about his homosexuality, then it would make sense that Murnau’s creative control was finite at the discretion of the film’s studio Fox, which would possibly give an explanation as to why The Wife ends up not dying in the end, which is inconsistent with the short story the film is based on and seems to be inconsistent with the tone of the film.
The film could also be about city life and country life, with The Wife, and to a lesser extent The Man representing archetypes of life in the country, and the Woman From the City as an archetype of life in the city. The Woman From the City offers hustle, bustle, and carnality that is found in the city life she comes from, while The Wife offers the simple, moral life available in the country.
Sunrise could also be a story that represents the overarching themes of good and evil, with The Wife representing good and the Woman From the City representing evil. This would serve as an explanation for the Woman From the City’s homicidal desires and The Man’s homicidal tendencies. Even in the situation of an affair, the one committing the affair usually doesn’t resort to murdering his original partner. This sort of twisted idea would need to originate from a source that is truly evil.
Of course, Sunrise isn’t constricted to interpretations where The Wife represents something and The Woman From the City represents another. One could interpret The Wife as the main protagonist and claim this is a film about forgiveness, with the Wife learning to forgive her unfaithful husband and falling back in love with him.
Sunrise’s ambiguity is possibly its most important aspect. Murnau intentionally leaving key details ambiguous means that he has left the film open for interpretation, which is a meaning for the film in itself. While Murnau may have had one or two messages he was trying to get across with the film, he still leaves it intentionally open for wider interpretation.
Certain qualities of The Man are found in every man. He desires romantic love, he struggles with lust, he has an innate violence within him, and he desires to be the leader and protector in his relationship with his wife. Certain qualities of The Wife are found in every wife. She is maternal, gentle, and jealous for her husband’s love. These are, of course, generalizations, but because of the humanly common qualities found in The main characters, these characters can represent all people. Their generality and ambiguity allow for Sunrise to be considered a film about any situation.
While Murnau may or may not have intended for the film to be about some topics, such as the previously mentioned potential meanings of city/country life, good and evil, or Murnau’s homosexuality, he intended to leave the film ambiguous. This ambiguity makes the film a blank canvas for interpretation for the viewer. What the film meant for Murnau in its 1927 release may not mean what it means for a viewer in 2018, but Murnau wanted future viewers to have their own interpretations. While Murnau obviously didn’t make the film in 1927 about false images portrayed on social media, he allowed for the film to be interpreted in this and other ways down throughout the future.
While Sunrise is a great movie, it’s not timeless due to its quality alone. It’s the ambiguous meaning which makes it timeless. Sunrise is a film that can be applied to many situations, regardless of time period, and though it’s certainly a high quality movie, its application of interpretation makes it the timeless classic that it is for yesterday, today, and decades to come.