日出

HD

主演:乔治·奥布莱恩,珍妮·盖诺,玛格丽特·利文斯顿,波蒂尔·罗辛,J·法瑞尔·麦克唐纳,Ralph,Sipperly,简·维顿,阿瑟·豪斯曼,Eddie,Boland,赫尔曼·宾,,西德尼·布雷西,基诺科拉多,Vondell,Darr,萨利·艾勒斯,吉布森·格沃兰德,Fletcher,Henderson,Thomas,Jefferson,鲍勃·科特曼,F·W·茂瑙,Barry,Norton,罗伯特·帕里什,Sally,Phipps,坦普·皮戈特,Harry,Semels,菲利普斯·斯莫利,李奥·怀特,Clar

类型:电影地区:中国大陆语言:汉语普通话年份:1985

 无尽

缺集或无法播,更换其他线路.

 红牛

缺集或无法播,更换其他线路.

 剧照

日出 剧照 NO.1日出 剧照 NO.2日出 剧照 NO.3日出 剧照 NO.4日出 剧照 NO.5日出 剧照 NO.6日出 剧照 NO.13日出 剧照 NO.14日出 剧照 NO.15日出 剧照 NO.16日出 剧照 NO.17日出 剧照 NO.18日出 剧照 NO.19日出 剧照 NO.20

 剧情介绍

日出电影免费高清在线观看全集。
  盛夏的度假时节,一位城市女人来到乡下滞留,这期间,城市女人诱惑了当地的农夫并教唆他杀死自己的妻子(Janet Gaynor 饰)以便贩卖掉农庄后私奔。被迷惑了心窍的男人早已忘记了那些同妻子共处的纯美时光,他将妻子带到河面蓄谋加害,却在要下毒手时幡然悔悟,伤心的妻子踏上了进城的列车,男人穷追不舍一同抵达城市。城市里真正是一片花花世界呵,这对夫妻在街上游走玩乐,在那些小小的玩笑中,甜蜜的冒险中,他们又找回了爱情的美妙共鸣……和好如初的两人返回乡村,不料却在归途遇上了肆虐的风浪……   本片是德国导演茂瑙赴美发展后拍摄的第一部作品,曾被多家权威媒体评选为默片最佳杰作之一,获第一届奥斯卡最佳女演员、摄影等多项褒奖。沙风暴夺命狙击2天桥十三郎失踪的国王爱与冰激凌恶作剧潘菲洛夫28勇士黑三角沐浴盐僵尸一千灵异夜之血咒诡影直播间这都不是事之二爷的阵地恶魔虚像一家大晒暴力小姐骨头镇奇谭巴塞罗那刘老根4弗兰肯斯坦传奇第二季SF8哭泣的男人2014逐爱游戏[泰语版]成为母亲大河之北 第四季人鱼公主三千岁小屁孩日记我说你做追踪者游戏W职权骚扰的上司是我的前女友中华兵王办砸了抖音世界杯脱口秀之夜变身吉妹超级异能人美国恐怖故事第五季死亡天使背影师父!我要跳舞了黑色星期天蓝色粉末囧男孩鸳鸯结蝎子王5:灵魂之书

 长篇影评

 1 ) 关于《日出》摄影机运动(摘抄)

原文取自Patrick Keating的《THE DYNAMIC FRAME Camera Movement in Classical Hollywood》。本书在讨论《日出》这部电影时,是以20s中期德国电影对美国电影的影响为背景,以及美国电影人把摄影机运动视为鬼把戏(trick shots)的态度:是滑稽喜剧的专长而不符合严肃戏剧的高雅。在德国电影《最后一笑》《杂耍班》中,摄影机运动和角度让美国电影人大为震惊,这些创新的贡献不仅仅是技术上的,更深层的是从文化上的干预。移动摄影机不再是一个滑稽的把戏,而是成为艺术雄心的一种表达。静态戏剧和动态喜剧之间的对立也被打破。

以下为原文:

Sunrise

A great deal was riding on Sunrise—not just Fox’s investment but also Hollywood’s ever-evolving identity as an industry both American and international. Would Murnau assimilate to the American style, devising unusual angles to add “kick” to the story? Or would the German director continue to explore the semisubjective realm with a style that had inspired critics to reach for comparisons to Cezanne and Picasso? Murnau had promised to make a film with American virtues: speed, pep, initiative. The finished film belies this promise: Sunrise is slow and serious, with characters notably lacking in drive. The story is about a rural couple, simply called the Man and the Wife (George O’Brien and Janet Gaynor). The evil Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston) convinces the Man to kill his wife in a staged boating accident. He cannot go through with the murder, and, overcome with guilt, he follows his wife to the city, where he slowly regains her trust. Whereas many Hollywood films emphasize external action, the conflict here is almost entirely internal: the Man must rediscover his love for his wife, and the Wife must recognize that his conversion is sincere. This minimal plot leaves ample room for emotional expression.

To tell this tale, Murnau used almost every cinematic device available, from set design and acting to lighting and camera movement. As in The Last Laugh, Murnau explored the ambiguous territory of the semisubjective. In one celebrated seTuence, the Man walks through the marshes to visit with the Woman from the City. Cinematographers Rosher and Struss placed the camera on a platform suspended from tracks specially built into the studio’s ceiling, using motors to aid the shot’s operator, Struss, by lifting the camera platform up and down as it moved forward. 58 For all the shot’s technical bravado, its real interest lies in its shifts from external to internal and back again. The camera starts out by following the Man from behind and then tracks with him in profile after he makes a turn to go through some trees (fig. 1.7a–b). Here, the mode is external but attached—we observe the Man from the outside, but we discover the space as he discovers it. When the Man approaches the lens (fig. 1.7c), the camera pans to the left and dollies forward, pushing through some branches to discover the Woman from the City (fig. 1.7d). 59 For a brief moment, it appears that the film has entered a subjective mode, representing what the Man sees through his own eyes. The Woman turns her head. Perhaps she will look directly at the camera, as if welcoming the Man’s arrivalbut, no, her gaze crosses past the lens, and the bored look on her face indicates that the Man has not yet arrived. First attached and then subjective, the mode becomes nonsubjective and nonattached, showing an event that the Man cannot see yet. A moment later the Woman looks offscreen again, this time recognizing that the Man is approaching. When he enters the screen from off-left, it is a further perceptual surprise: the last time we saw him, he was off-right. The Man and the Woman kiss, and the shot comes to an end. In a lecture in 1928, Struss described this shot in terms that reflect its ambiguity. His statement, “Here we move with the man and his thoughts,” evoked a subjective interpretation of the image, but later he claimed, “We seem to be surreptitiously watching the love scenes,” as if the camera had adopted the perspective of an unseen observer. 60

1.7 In Sunrise, the camera follows the Man as he walks through the marsh; later, the camera appears to look through his eyes.

Other shots extend this semisubjective approach. In The Last Laugh, Murnau had placed his camera on a rotating platform to create the effect of the world spinning around the porter. In Sunrise, Murnau designed an ingenious variation on this strategy, depicting the twists and turns of a trolley ride. The first part of the seTuence was photographed on a trolley path built alongside Lake Arrowhead; the rest was shot on another constructed line that circled into Rochus Gliese’s enormous false-perspective city set on the Fox lot. 61 One shot shows the Wife huddling in the corner of the car. We can barely see her face, but the trolley veers right and then left, showing us tracks, a worker on a bicycle, a factory, and other images indicating that she is reaching the edge of the city (fig. 1.8a–b). The unpredictable swaying of the trolley expresses her emotional state—her terrified confusion about her husband’s newly revealed capacity for violence and betrayal. Meanwhile, Murnau uses the trolley’s movement to comment on the inevitability of modernity: these two peasants have no control over the trolley car, and they must stand by passively while the background changes from the countryside to the city, a change in landscape that will render their peasant lifestyle obsolete.

In her insightful analysis of the film, Caitlin McGrath has situated Murnau’s shots within a longer tradition of camera movement stretching back to the cinema of attractions, as in Bitzer’s subway film in 1904 (fig. 1.1). 62 Another proximate comparison is the trolley scene from girl Shy. There, the Boy treats the world as a series of obstacles to be overcome, commandeering a trolley car to get to his destination as Tuickly as possible. In Sunrise, the movement of the trolley does little to advance the goals of either character, who are merely passengers on a journey they cannot control. In one sense, girl Shy does a better job integrating story and shot: the action on the trolley serves to advance the protagonist’s goal. In another sense, Sunrise is the more fully integrated of the two. girl Shy briefly abandons the Boy to deliver a gag about the drunkard’s confusion. Sunrise lingers on the passage of the trolley because its swaying motions serve to express the Wife’s state of mind. Every swerve is expressive.

1.8 The Wife stands Tuietly on the trolley as the landscape changes behind her.

The latter film further develops its characterization of the modern city in a pair of seTuences showing the couple crossing the dangerous street. In the first seTuence, the camera is on a dolly following the Wife (probably a stunt double) as she walks from the trolley to the curb; halfway through the shot, the Man grabs the Wife and walks with her the rest of the way. Several cars zip by in the foreground and background, just missing the couple—and the camera, which is crossing the street as well (fig. 1.9a–b). In the second seTuence, the Man and the Wife have reconciled, and they gaze into each other’s eyes as they cross the busy street again (fig. 1.10a). They are utterly oblivious to the traffic, which dissolves away to become a pastoral meadow, as if this peasant couple has rediscovered the country in the heart of the city (fig. 1.10b). Whereas the first seTuence unfolds in fast motion as if it were a slapstick stunt, the second seTuence is a composite, using a traveling-matte effect that combines three distinct layers in a single shot: a foreground layer with cars passing by closely; a background layer dissolving from the city to the country; and a middleground layer showing the lovers walking while the camera follows on a dolly. Each layer was shot separately, then printed onto a separate piece of film. 63

1.9 The camera follows first the Wife as she begins to cross the street and then the Man and the Wife as they scramble across it.

This moment of joy does not mean that the film endorses the city and its values of consumerism, pleasure, and distraction. The urban citizens constantly remind the Man and the Wife that they are peasants; it is their acceptance of this identity that allows them to reaffirm their values. When they kiss in the middle of traffic, their love provides an escape from the modern city, even as the traffic bears down upon them. The visual contrast between the bumping dolly of the first seTuence and the traveling matte of the second develops the thematic shift. When the camera follows the Wife and the Man as they scramble across the street, their movements are so erratic that the couple never stays in the center of the frame. There is instead an oscillation from right to left as the couple jogs back and forth to escape the traffic. Later the traveling-matte effect locks the couple in the center of the frame, even though they are walking the whole time. The city around them buzzes with activity; the couple has become a symbol of stability.

1.10 Later, a traveling matte shows the Man and the Wife in traffic; the urban background dissolves into a pastoral scene.

Far from making a film with speed, pep, and initiative, Murnau tells a story criticizing those very values. Instead of delivering the occasional nonnarrative “kick,” the moving camera expresses the characters’ emotions while commenting on the ephemeral delights and the disorienting emptiness of modern life. The director’s longtime booster Maurice Kann raved about the film, seeing it as the fulfillment of The Last Laugh’s promising experiments with the representation of subjectivity: “Murnau has succeeded in boring his camera lens into the very brain of his players and shows you in picture form the thoughts that surge through their heads.” 64 Other critics commented on the film’s internationalism—its hybrid mixture of European aesthetics with a Hollywood budget. Pare Lorentz—then a film critic, later an esteemed documentarian—thought that the German–American mixture was a failure. He praised the “breathtaking photography” and the “perfect” first fifteen minutes, but he argued that the extended seTuence in the city contained too many gags, which had been added to entertain the “chocolate-sundae audience.” 65 European artistry had given way to slapstick trickery. Variety’s critic wrote more favorably that the film was “made in this country, but produced after the best manner of the German school.” 66 Moving Picture World noticed the film’s “continental flavor,” while commenting wryly on the association between national style and cultural status: “Coming from abroad, this production would be hailed by critics as a triumph. Even with the American label they are forced to give it grudging praise.” 67 Whereas Lorentz denounced the film for including too many concessions to the American audience, Variety and World positioned the film as a fascinating hybrid, a European artwork made in Los Angeles.

In the end, Sunrise struggled at the box office, and Murnau’s own career at Fox took a downward turn. 68 He experienced less support and more constraints on his remaining two films for the studio: the lost film Four Devils (1928) and the smaller-scale film City Girl (1930), both designed as nondialogue pictures, and both turned into part-talkies with added seTuences not directed by Murnau. 69 But Murnau’s impact was undeniable. As Janet Bergstrom reports, “[A] sign of William Fox’s appreciation of the artistic Tuality of Murnau’s films was that he encouraged his top directors to work in the same dark, visually expressive style.” 70 She lists several examples of Fox films made in Murnau’s style, including 7th Heaven (1927) and Street Angel (1928) by Frank Borzage, Fazil (1928) by Howard Hawks, The Red Dance (1928) by Raoul Walsh, and Mother Machree (1928) and Four Sons (1928) by John Ford. Other examples from the studio might include East Side, West Side (1927) and Frozen -ustice (1929) by Allan Dwan as well as Paid to Love (1927) by Hawks and Hangman’s House (1928) by Ford.

Outside Fox Studios, there is evidence that the trend toward unusual angles started well before Sunrise was released. In The Eagle (1925), the camera, suspended from a bridge stretched between two dollies, moves backward across a table, appearing to pass through several solid objects along the way. Director Clarence Brown explained, “We had prop boys putting candelabra in place just before the camera picked them up.” 71 An article in Film Daily in 1925 reports that cinematographer J. Roy Hunt used a handheld gyroscopic camera, inspired by The Last Laugh, to photograph The Manicure *irl, a lost film directed by Frank Tuttle. 72 The following year Maurice Kann spotted the influence of Variety in two other Famous Players–Lasky films: Victor Fleming’s MantraS and William Wellman’s You Never Know Women. Kann even gave credit to the cinematographers: Jimmy (James Wong) Howe and Victor Milner, respectively. 73 Less fortunate was Michael Curtiz, the Hungarian-born director beginning his long career at Warner Bros. His American debut, The Third Degree (1926), earned a skeptical review from Gilbert Seldes, who worried that directors were abusing the innovations of Variety. 74 PhotoSlay also denounced Curtiz’s film, noting that it was “filled with German camera-angles that don’t mean a thing.” 75 Another fan magazine complained, “The German films have caused our directors to become excited over the odd effects to be obtained by photographing scenes from unusual angles.” 76 An article in Motion Picture Classic declared that camera angles were “the bunk” and blamed the critics for heaping praise on European films when they employed the same “trick photography” that Americans had been doing for years. 77 The critics gave voice to a widely shared worry. Hollywood studios had the resources to copy the latest techniTues, either by hiring European personnel or by imitating their manner; what they needed to do was prove that they could use those techniTues in a meaningful way.

NOTES

58. Richard Koszarski discusses this shot in “The Cinematographer,” in New York to Hollywood: The PhotograShy of Karl Struss, ed. Barbara McCandless, Bonnie Yochelson, and Richard Koszarski (Fort Worth, TX: Amon Carter Museum, 1995), 177.

59. Struss claimed that the suspended dolly had a “wedge shaped thing” on the front to push the foliage out of the way (interview in Scott Eyman, Five American CinematograShers [Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1987], 9).

60. Karl Struss, “Dramatic Cinematography,” Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers 12, no. 34 (October 1928): 318. 61. Susan Harvith and John Harvith, Karl Struss: Man with a Camera (Bloomsfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Academy of Art, 1976), 15.

62. Caitlin McGrath, “Captivating Motion: Late–Silent Film SeTuences of Perception in the Modern Urban Environment,” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2010, 222.

63. For more information on this shot, see Murnau, Borzage, and Fox, DVD box set.

64. Maurice Kann, “Sunrise and Movietone,” Film Daily, September 25, 1927, 4.

65. Pare Lorentz, “The Stillborn Art” (1928), in Lorentz on Film: Movies, 19271941 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986), 25.

66. “Rush.,” “Sunrise,” Variety, September 28, 1927, 21.

67. “Sunrise,” Moving Picture World 88, no. 5 (October 1, 1927): 312.

68. Donald Crafton reports that Sunrise “sank like a stone” in New York after a strong opening. Its run at the Cathay Circle Theatre in Los Angeles was more successful (The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound, 192–1931 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997], 525–527).

69. Janet Bergstrom carefully details the making of both films in “Murnau in America: Chronicle of Lost Films,” Film History 14, nos. 3–4 (2002): 430–460.

70. Bergstrom, William Fox Presents F. W. Murnau and Frank Borzage, 10.

71. Clarence Brown, Tuoted in Brownlow, The Parade’s *one By … , 146. A decade later, the director repeated the trick in Anna Karenina (1935).

72. “The Gyroscopic Camera and Future Production Possibilities,” Film Daily, June 7, 1925, 5.

73. Maurice Kann, “Fred Thomson,” Film Daily, July 14, 1926, 1, and Maurice Kann, “More Pictures,” Film Daily, July 15, 1926, 1. Elsewhere, a fan commented on the fact that You Never Know Women copied its angles from Variety (Richard Roland, “What the Foreigners Have Done for Us,” PicturePlay Magazine 26, no. 1 [March 1927]: 12). Largely conventional, MantraS (1926) featured one spectacular montage showing a dynamic trip from the country to the city.

74. Gilbert Seldes, “Camera Angles,” New ReSublic 50, no. 640 (March 9, 1927): 72–73.

75. “The Shadow Stage,” PhotoSlay 31, no. 4 (March 1927): 94.

76. Ken Chamberlain, “Camera Angles,” Motion Picture 23, no. 3 (April 1927):

25. The tone of the article is mocking, accompanied by four cartoons depicting four bizarre techniTues.

77. Harold R. Hall, “Camera Angles—the Bunk,” Motion Picture Classic 24, no. 6 (February 1927): 18, 79.

 2 ) 从影片中窥见女性的自我成长史

剧情很简单,很适合默片,不需要多少文字提示,就能看进去,也便于影片传播。

2020了,应该很多人跟我一样对剧情的逻辑性上还是会细思极恐。不过侧面也反应出了当时对于女性的主流价值观,告诉你怎样的女人才有好结果。

通片女主的基调也都是一致的,温柔似水,俏皮可爱,遇事没主见,丈夫为天。1,明知道自己的丈夫在外面有女人,只是自己伤心难过,也不吐露自己心声,不主动解决问题;2.在第一点的前提下,丈夫邀请出去游玩,欣喜若狂,没有任何疑问,当然更不会去想丈夫为什么要约我出去;3.在知道丈夫有杀自己的心后,只是害怕,没有任何自救行动,丈夫在最后幡然醒悟上岸后,也只是害怕,撒腿就跑,也没有任何其他行动,哪怕上车后求救都没有;4. 在丈夫哀求下(给她买吃的,送花,甜言蜜语),原谅了丈夫;5.在理发店里,坐在旁边的男人对她动手动脚,只害怕退缩,没有任何行动,最后躲在丈夫身后 ;6. 晚上坐船返程回家时遇到暴风雨,醒后害怕,没有任何自救行动,反而抱住丈夫,当时丈夫正在使劲划船自救呢。

女性柔软似水是贯穿了整个影片。

对比当今女性的价值观,可窥见一二女性的自我成长史。

 3 ) 要默片还是有声片

有时候看默片,就好比是学习另一种语言,这种语言由默片时代的导演和摄影师不断发展和完善,以至于它鲜少甚至不用任何字幕便可以讲清一个故事。但是随着有声电影的来到,镜头语言不可避免的出现了混乱,因为镜头的叙述可以被对白或旁白所代替。有声电影的发明好比是巴别塔的倒下,从这个意义上说,电影从神的语言变成了人的语言。
我的意思绝不是说我们应该要回归默片,而是当我们看《女友礼拜五》《马耳他之鹰》或者类似于伍迪·艾伦的影片时,如此快的语速和如此多的对白,让我们的视觉为字幕而疲于奔命,我们到底从银幕上还能看到什么,让我不禁怀疑我们到底是在‘看’电影还是在‘读’电影。对白虽然很重要,但是绝不能凌驾于画面之上。一部电影抽去所有的声音,仍成其为一部电影,而抽去所有的镜头,它是留声机。请做3楼楼长。

 4 ) 夜里朦朦

耐着性子看下去。有了收获。只想要看看能给予足够感受的影片。主角么,故事么,都不计较。
故事说不上太好。但是我想看默片的享受是在于,不用拘限于对白的框架,通过人物的眉宇之间,能收获的何止一盘。
看到眼里淌着泪的The man,这难过,忏悔渗出眼睛,而手有着安慰。我想女性的确分为两种或三种,一种是极尽全力的刻薄,一种为生活平淡里的调节品,一种是安然的覆盖生性。我想那个“可爱的新娘”是属于后者。两句的“别害怕我”,在屏幕看着,如果我能帮个什么忙,我真愿意,替The man安慰一番。
The woman感激着一切,感受着这美好的转变,足够忍耐,足够可爱。看得我心化得如她的微笑,在夜归的电车上,哪怕是一盏灯火,都了表大家的心意。
夜色朦朦,走上路,过条河。期待他的吻。

 5 ) 评

       看完之后,激动之情不能用语言表示。
    对比默片时代美国本土导演拍摄的影片和德国及导演在美拍摄的影片,整体电影质量上,个人觉得差了10年。
    无论是场面调度,还是剪辑,都值得学习。节奏好,在内部有节奏张力,剪辑上又增添了内部张力,这种对比性极强的剪辑手法,棒!内外语言都丰富了故事得可看性,即在艺术上有表达,又考虑到观众的商业性因素。
    结尾代表了它得商业片属性,德国表现主义电影,可以借鉴得东西太多了,这种表演的内敛和表现,加上整体镜头内气氛得渲染,它和黑色电影的关系,和苏联式左翼蒙太奇学派得关系,都有得传承和相通。在茂瑙得个人风格上,他对节奏得把握,在镜头里面缔造悬念,牵引观众的能力非常强。看美国默片向看大块得色彩,看茂瑙得片子看到了大色块,又看到了色块里细腻得纹路。
    茂瑙,德国,虽然片子得走向是完美得团圆式结构,这种结构带出了茂瑙对人得不信任,骨子里得那种悲伤与脆弱。

 6 ) 有声片之前,一切都显得与神更亲近

茂瑙,德国表现主义大师,20年代拍摄《诺斯费拉图》,与编剧卡尔梅育合作拍摄室内剧《最卑贱的人》,海外放映后广受好评,也因此被好莱坞发掘。本片是茂瑙与福克斯签订合约后拍摄的第一部影片,据《世界电影史》评述,是该公司1927年成本最高的影片——上映后却获利平平。

但《日出》的影响无疑是深远的,不仅使得约翰·福特等人深受鼓舞,也将德国电影的独特风格引入好莱坞。尽管经典电影史读本往往会归纳出风格和特征来区分各个国家的电影,以便进行历史分期,但不论是技巧或是技术,融合都显得更为普遍,并且无可避免——打破范式又深入其中,甚至早于新浪潮导演对希区柯克的评价。以本片为范本,不仅可以发现德国表现主义的阴郁、构图,早期喜剧默片的肢体运动和表情设计,好莱坞情节剧的流畅剪辑、必不可少的大团圆结局。这些特征相得益彰,让这部默片显得动人至艺术,时至今日依旧如此,将默片的魅力最大化。

1、电影技巧

叠印,不断在表现心理活动的时刻出现,用绝对外化的画面的方式使观众理解。收放自如剪切进字幕中间,仿佛调节情绪的按钮。其中值得一提的是夫妻进城之后走出结婚礼堂——仿佛又结了一次婚,他们高兴的像走入了幸福深处,花朵、辽阔、明媚,直到喇叭声渐起,却发现原来不自觉已经闯入路口中央,这个段落的表现方式是在胶片上做文章,人物与背景贴合,再分离,幻想打破滑落进现实,余韵却已经使我们都明白,丈夫已经痛改前非,他们的心彼此相连。

景别交错,移动摄影,为了突出人物淡化周围环境,特写表情,雨夜那一段的光影交织,泰坦尼克号借尸还魂。

2、默片美感

每当看到心动的默片,我就会想起巴赞说的“完整电影的神话”,曾经在无声向有声时代迈进时坚不可摧的理论,而时光流转,当电影技术已经摧枯拉朽,vr、120帧层出不穷且从不止步,回看1927年的默片,却以他的“残缺”使观众完全沉浸其中,重新回到20年代。不管怎样,未来一直来,偶尔向过去投取一瞥,总依依不舍。

 短评

【B+】①剪辑流畅的难以相信这是默片时代的作品②卡梅隆借鉴了大量元素移植到泰坦尼克号里,没有的话我吃翔③我认为电影从无声变成有声的过程中,有些东西是找不回来的。

8分钟前
  • 掉线
  • 推荐

太牛逼了了了了了,太感人了了了了了

9分钟前
  • SWX
  • 力荐

临渊下返照的爱,是人间最美的回光。这是世界上最美的默片,每一秒都像情与艺的结晶;它亦是一部诠释初心的电影,在戏内书写了爱的初心,在戏外象征着电影的初心。

13分钟前
  • Ocap
  • 力荐

有爱不会死,这是好莱坞始终为爱情故事定下的基调。男女主角在马路中央接吻不会被撞,最后女主角也不会被淹死。就像同样是默片时代的《七重天》那样男主角在战争中死亡依然可以死而复生,或者是现代的动作喜剧《斯密斯夫妇》那样在枪林弹雨中也可以安然无恙,只要夫妻之间有爱情,他们就不会死。

16分钟前
  • 刘康康
  • 还行

啊,我的评论被折叠了,还有4个没用,骄傲受不了怒删了。贴这儿吧,十颗星解释一下→ http://www.douban.com/note/283013556/ ★★★★★★★★★★

19分钟前
  • 🌞娘卷卷🌙
  • 力荐

纯粹的好电影,作为默片我甚至觉得片长过短意犹未尽,一个感人的救赎故事以及令人目瞪口呆的影像,精致的幽默,还是一出华丽的城市幻想曲,两个主角太棒了,我作为观众为他们高兴、担心、难过、愤怒、又回到喜悦,这大概就是完美的电影的一个门派吧。

24分钟前
  • TWY
  • 力荐

观看《日出》,你会忽然意识到小津美学的源头。这个简单到不能再简单的故事里表现出浓烈的保守主义倾向,对城市和城市女人的妖魔化处理、男人在传统家庭伦理和现代社会间的选择、女性形象的处理,这些都是20年代末保守思潮的体现,更不用说整个故事就是德莱赛《美国的悲剧》的团圆化处理。但在晚期默片时代电影技法和声音处理的极大进步下,这一切都不再重要了。影片最神奇的段落不是各种叠画的应用,而是电车上男女之间那段无言的场景。茂瑙在二人身上找到了无尽的情感诗意,而这正是后来保守派的小津在生活画面里一直能成功捕捉到的人性力量。怪不得他那么喜欢拍火车,铁路旅行本来就是很电影化的经验嘛。

26分钟前
  • brennteiskalt
  • 力荐

茂瑙代表作,影史最佳默片之一。①融合德国表现主义与好莱坞古典特质,处处可见欧美互动;②与情妇幽会的长镜头包含主客观视角切换,调度妙绝;③情节悲喜交加,感染力极强,无头雕像,醉酒小猪,结尾拥吻与日出;④叠印与多重曝光外化情绪,大赞;⑤配乐令人动容,摄影美如画;⑥教堂圣光与摇曳律动光影。(9.5/10)

29分钟前
  • 冰红深蓝
  • 力荐

好莱坞经典通俗剧与德国表现主义的完美结合:故事一气呵成,技术更是真大牛,一九二七年的遮罩给我看傻了。

33分钟前
  • 托尼·王大拿
  • 力荐

电影史:充满了表现主义笔触的德国式场面调度。1927年首届奥斯卡最佳影片和首届影后得主,茂瑙到好莱坞之后在好莱坞体系下的尝试。11分钟时的推进移动长镜头接连呈现3个视角,叠影、双重曝光、对比蒙太奇、跟拍、变焦、跳切转镜、多层胶片剪辑,充满了一种如梦似幻感。技术层面在那个时代都是创新,随便哪一段都是今天的影史教材。9

36分钟前
  • 巴喆
  • 力荐

这样的电影会让你觉得电影无声其实也没什么

40分钟前
  • 桃桃林林
  • 力荐

开头如此平淡的一个婚外恋故事到后段却能如此波澜壮阔、直至结尾的升华。城市和乡村,情人与妻子,谋杀与拯救。杀妻(对乡村生活的厌弃)与救妻(对原有生活秩序的超越性回归),演绎了人生中最常见的否定之否定。影片也成功的展现了爱情中隐藏的杀与恕。人之为人,繁复至斯,简单至斯。

41分钟前
  • xīn
  • 力荐

茂瑙在好莱坞的处女作。虽然票房不佳但影响很多导演,如约翰福特。值得一提是,在咖啡吧那一段。为了制造纵深。不惜人为的制造透视效果。如将地面抬高,眼前的灯泡改用大号,使用矮小的群众演员等等。另外,茂瑙为了怀念自己的深爱挚友也是恋人(同性)而改名为茂瑙这件事真是太浪漫了。

45分钟前
  • 荒也
  • 力荐

人心如此善变,让你猝不及防。即使最后给人希望,但细思总是恐怖。

48分钟前
  • 方枪枪
  • 推荐

现在谁还会用狗的咆哮、疯狂来预示不安,谁会用涂黑眼袋来象征人的黑暗,谁会给大笑的主人公特写,谁还会关注在灾难发生前重归于好的夫妻,谁还会安排让观众误以为主人公死去,然后又被一个好心的、不放弃希望农家老伯救起的情节,谁还会用“日出”代表美好。

50分钟前
  • 次非
  • 推荐

电影在开头的情节上人物心理的刻画上很成功,但后面的剧情夹杂了许多的喜剧元素,破坏了电影的整体艺术效果。电影的摄影在当时算非常厉害,其中一个男主角在沼泽中行走去幽会的一个跟踪拍摄最为出色——一个客观性的镜头到主观镜头的自然过渡。

53分钟前
  • 合纥
  • 还行

开头几分钟还以为是黑色片,没想到是我看过的一出最无言的浪漫啊

55分钟前
  • 米粒
  • 力荐

总感觉这部电影的创作点有些过于阴暗,更像一出十足的黑色电影,丝毫看不出让人感动的点,如果你爱的人有过杀你的念头,你还能熟视无睹地爱下去吗,我觉得很多人都不会有这么强大,我爱你但我想杀你,与你共枕的人都这么可怕,而你还想与他过下去,实属理解无能,最好的结局就是妻子意外丧生,是对这个有过歹念的男人最好的回答,而不是用团圆来化解,因为你根本不知道丈夫还会不会有下一次鬼迷心窍被邪恶侵袭的时候,暂时对创作的动机接受无能。

57分钟前
  • 炯之
  • 还行

原来跪着看完毫不夸张。经典就是永不过时,时看时新,每看必收获。除开电影语言的登峰造极,情节也是意趣盎然,甩现在的大路货N条高速公路。

1小时前
  • 帕拉
  • 力荐

德国表现主义和好莱坞通俗爱情剧的完美合体。主客观长镜头连续切换,茂瑙对于场面调度的掌控力极强;爱的分分合合,迷你断臂雕像/嗜酒黑猪/片尾拥吻看日出/海上遇浪,舟上寻妻;多重曝光+叠影,配乐悠扬美妙外放情绪,教堂宣誓催人泪下,好感人的默片。

1小时前
  • 糖罐子.
  • 力荐