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。

第一次犹豫，叠化镜头直接展现人物心理感受，给出心理转变理由，下定决心行动。第二次，最后关头的转变，用内心的钟声传达。片中的第二次钟声响起则是宣告两人和解、重拾旧爱的时刻。大马路上旁若无人的吻。镜头拍的是水上的芦苇杆，却能传达出绝望与悲伤。无愧默片时代最佳之一。大概是影史上第一部从某种维度审视而呈现为完美形态的爱情题材影片？这个维度大概是保守、传统道德与家庭观念下的爱情价值取向。在这种可能更多是美好幻想的观念里，男主战胜了第三者的邪恶诱惑从而守住了忠诚，并且一定要设计这样一次最惊险的遭遇，使男女主经历生死的考验进而确证这份爱情的坚贞不渝。落水的女主角没有死却也如再生了一般，因为这种生死交际处的强烈情感波动无疑唤醒与更新了那可能随时间流逝与平庸生活而日渐显示其乏味的“真爱”。这便是我指其为幻想的原因，因为这样的高潮情节——生离死别之考验不太能在现实中发生，而且作为一部电影，它只能停留在这大悲又大喜的圆满结尾之处，它本来也明白，那其后的漫长岁月以及相伴而生的也许还会复苏的矛盾或裂痕，它是无力也根本不需要解决的。对于要讨观众电影喜欢或者编织幻想的电影来说，故事讲到这里就已经是全部，以后的世界本来是不存在的。这似乎便成为这部杰作的遗憾之所，一个童话故事般的结尾，放在现代理性地来看已不太能有说服力。当然在电影所给出的如此美妙的一百分钟充满真实感受的童话体验之后，我们也就不会苛责了。最主要还是茂瑙调动一切奇妙又美好的镜头所营造的这个光影迷梦太美好了，而且最妙的它还是一部黑白无声电影，使他免去了一些可能的艳俗之感（华丽的布景、粘腻的对白等）。在如今再制造这样一个朴素的爱情童话已很难获得所谓专业评论者的赞誉，但在1927年，默片时代的茂瑙（尽管掺入了一些明显迎合市场而破坏整体性的相对俗套的喜剧桥段）却是可以实现的。

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

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.

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

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.

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.

如此成熟的技法很难让人相信这是部1927年的电影，双重曝光以及影像合成，在那个年代确实算的上前卫了。很喜欢狗狗上船的那段情节，在岸边吼叫不仅是在提醒女主危险的到来，也是男主内心挣扎的物化，可男主最终还是不希望淹死女主留下线索，决定掉转船头将狗狗送了回去，这一段女主的长镜头很好地设下了悬念，男主将要对狗狗做什么？只能留给观众想象。在男主的“良知”被唤醒后，与女主在街头拥吻引起交通堵塞的情节也很有意思，司机们开始向他们抱怨，一方面展现了城市化工业化对情感的吞噬，也是城市脆弱的体现。印象比较深的还有最后城市女在树上看男主和救援队去海上寻找女主，场面调度上角色位置的安排就很好地说明了人与人的悲欢并不同步。最后男主女主在小船上遭遇暴风雨，男主拿出那捆原来想淹死女主自救的芦苇杆，让女主依靠它上岸，可芦苇杆最初存在的目的就是只拯救男主一人，即使男主希望拯救女主，在命运下也成为徒劳。电影从前面制造悬疑到后面发掘笑点，运用的技法确实可圈可点。

但我对剧情以及人物设定多少有些不满意。电影虽叫日出，但我们不应该只看日出带来温暖的一面，日出也只是短暂的。第一女性角色的设定上还是过于保守刻板。女主在男主已经有外遇的情况下仍然过的如同无事发生一样，也没有女主怀疑的镜头插入，反而在男主夜间回来还给他盖好被子。在男主想要杀自己的动机暴露后买几朵花看个婚礼就能选择原谅，多少有点不聪明。在男主剃胡子的那段戏中，男女主都会对陌生异性的勾引对方产生嫉妒，但不一样的是男主能拿口袋里的刀威胁勾引女主的男性，而女主穿的裙子连口袋也没有，只能嫉妒。男主最后想活活掐死城市女，而城市女只是劝说男主去杀女主，男主接受了，这比劝说本身更罪恶，更何况女主是自己的妻子也是自己孩子的妈妈，掐死城市女就是在推卸责任，这也能说明男主并没有真正反省，这是很可怕的，再计划杀女主一次只是时间问题，就这种男的敢和他呆？但这毕竟也是一部老电影了，而且那个时代对女性的刻板印象也很多，但我绝不希望在今后的电影中看到。然后是剧情方面的一些问题，这部电影浪漫主义色彩有点过重了，两个来自乡村的男女主角，在远离自己家乡的城市找到了快乐与幸福，又把城市女设定成一个反派，这不是自相矛盾？这些先不谈，以上当然是有可能的，但这也就是我想强调的：日出是短暂的。平时情侣一次吵架分手过后出去玩了一圈又复合了，他们难道不会再吵架了吗？人还是人，本性难移。而且城市本身就对两人来说就是一个陌生又遥远的地方，那个破旧的小乡村才是他们的家，那里没有马戏团，没有照相馆，只有生活，平庸的生活。当初不就是在这个小乡村男主移情别恋的吗？谁说日出后不会有乌云呢？我倒觉得剧情上没必要最后搞个暴风雨让女主假死一下，不如就让他们从城市回家生活一段时间，从幻想到幻想可没从幻想到现实更具冲击力。

记得曾经看完格里菲斯的《党同伐异》后，为影片的平行剪辑制造的效果感到惊叹。也是从那时起，我认识到早期的电影人对“用影像讲故事”的探究远比我想象的要深刻。而这部《日出》则让我看到了未来一百年中电影语言的基本规则。而无论后人对其做了多么精巧的改进，也没有该片电影语言的精髓。 在默片时代，因为没有声音。演员无法通过说话转达影片信息。为了保持整体的连贯性，字幕也是能省就省。这也使得导演必须通过镜头语言尽可能表达出更多的信息。哪怕在如今，同样的信息用影像表现也要比用台词表达高级得多。而这部《日出》就很好的体现了默片时代依靠镜头说话特点。 1.长镜头与透视法 影片上映与1927年。那时候没有斯坦尼康，摄影师想做到手持跟拍是很困难的，但在这部影片中，我们看到了长镜头拍摄的雏形。

镜头的第一个画面，一对老夫妇在画面右下角的前景。篱笆外墙和与之相平行的道路形成线性透视，并提供了深景深。这时城市女从深景中的房门向镜头走来，当她进入到画面中心时镜头左摇跟随人物。当人物要远离镜头时，摄影机开始跟随人物运动到男主角家门外，整个镜头结束。 虽然在电影初期一个镜头会拍摄很长时间，似乎长镜头并不是什么新鲜的手法。但这里我们说的长镜头不仅仅是镜头时间，而是带有镜头运动和场面调度的一系列过程。在前半段的静止画面中，导演运用透视原理和演员的调度达到了前景与背景之间的运动关系。而后半部分的跟拍则保持了镜头的连续性和观众的代入感。这是观众回想：这位女子半夜从家里出来鬼鬼祟祟的究竟是去哪？如果这里运用三段镜头剪辑在一起，虽然能表达同样的信息，但这种连续性和代入感却被打破了。 2.分割画面 一般来说，运用复格影像可以为观众带来全知视角，同时展现几个人物的动作。但在这里导演运动万花筒式的分割画面展现了城市的繁华，而万花筒式的画面也和都市灯红酒绿的形象形成对应。

3.叠印效果 叠印效果可以表现人物的梦境，想象或回忆。

男主角正在为是否杀死贤惠的妻子做心理斗争。这时城市女的影像通过叠印巧妙的贴合在男主角的身上。通过这个效果形象的体现男主角在内心斗争时没能经受住小三的欲望诱惑，最终选择杀死妻子。

这里则表现出夫妻俩的爱情，连天使都为他们送上祝福。 4.特写 特写镜头可以有效的突出画面中的重要信息，增强画面的冲击性。在表现恐怖效果上成效显著。

这三个镜头通过对芦苇，双手和小刀的特写，放大了男主角近乎变态的杀人动机。哪怕是非常普通的芦苇都借助特写镜头给观众惊悚的感觉，因为它象征着谋杀。同时也提醒观众，这个重要道具会在之后起到重要作用。

镜头的不断拉近，到最后的特写镜头，观众可以清晰的看到老妇人的泪光。通过这一系列镜头的放大，观众的情感也被放大，也表现出男主角逐渐得知妻子没有死的过程。如果只用最后的特写镜头，情感表达会显得突兀，不连贯。 5.观点镜头

这里比较巧妙的是小三女的主观镜头。导演通过小三的窥视一方面展现村民营救的过程，另一方面又将观众带入到小三的视角中，通过她得知女主死亡的信息。这大大增加了观众对小三的憎恨和对夫妻未能团圆的惋惜。 6.画面留白制造悬念

在最后的救援戏中，全村人划船寻找女主。这时镜头切到飘在水中昏迷的女主角，芦苇在不断散落，提醒观众时间紧迫。人物划出画面，观众们都为女主角捏了一把汗，大家都期待着丈夫能找到妻子。这时丈夫发现了这捆芦苇，配合着他绝望的面部特写。这让观众没有时间思考，本能的跟着男主角相信妻子已经死了。当然，我们都知道妻子没有死，导演通过留白和剪辑欺骗了观众，制造了情节的起伏。 7.默片中的背景音 有意思的是，本片虽然是默片，但全片还是运用了一些背景音。比如一直贯穿始终的教堂的钟声。在影片开头男主角决定杀死妻子的夜晚，他躺在床上望向妻子，雾气笼罩下的教堂叠化出现，钟声第一次响起。这里的钟声象征着罪恶，也交代了夜晚的过去。

之后在船上丈夫企图掐死妻子，妻子惊吓万分苦苦求饶，此时丈夫经不住良心的谴责丈夫用双手捂住眼睛，钟声第二次响起。它代表着上帝对丈夫的警示，希望唤起他内心的良知。丈夫快速把穿划向对岸，钟声一直响着，每一声都敲打在丈夫的良心深处，让他无地自容又后悔莫及。

第三次教堂钟声把夫妻俩吸引到了教堂，里面正在举行一场婚礼。此时神父告诉新郎要保护新娘不受到任何伤害。此时的丈夫流下了忏悔的眼泪。这里的钟声代表上帝对他的教育，引导他做回一个合格的丈夫。

两人在钟声下走出教堂，代表着夫妻婚姻的重生。

影片的最后，一直为出现的太阳终于升起，照耀在幸福的夫妻身上。预示着爱终究会战胜邪恶，正义的阳光终究会照耀在土地上！

god is giving u, in the holy bonds of matrimony, a trust. she is young and inexperienced. guide her and love her. keep her and protect her from all harm.
开头。this song of the man and his wife is of no place and every place. u might hear it anywhere at any time.
for wherever the sun rises and sets, in the city's turmoil, or under the open sky on the farm. life is much the same. sometimes bitter sometimes sweet.

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。

声音：无人声，声音（音乐+音响）叙事，渲染氛围、表现人物心理、故事递进。借鉴作曲思想展开创作。台词几乎是无必要的,影像自然地随音乐流动。符号并非视觉的,而是通过配乐给出。钟声作为某种"启示"的元素暗示情节转折,圆号则传达呼唤的效果,不难发现茂瑙简直是按某种配器法的思路进行构思; 几处配乐巧妙化用李斯特《前奏曲》、瓦格纳《齐格弗里德牧歌》、施特劳斯《梯尔的恶作剧》等曲目,游乐场一段将对比强烈的多种声源混于同一音轨,类似于莫扎特《唐乔万尼》第二幕结尾的设计,可谓十分大胆的声音处理。

剪辑：出色的叠化、分割画面、拼贴、扣像技术。用叠印效果介绍环境，表现人物心理、梦境与回忆。默片固有的“快进”风格，为了凸显“动作”。字母的形式（用于叙事），例如在男主准备杀女主时候的字母用了“流血”效果。

剧本（故事、角色塑造、结构、对白、情感基调、主题）：有爱不会死，这是好莱坞始终为爱情故事定下的基调。主题不敢恭维，老实说就算要我原谅曾经要我一命的家伙，我也办不到重新爱对方。夫妻双方和解是发生在城市的，在他们卧室这样的家庭空间中，城市女人也回到城市。这样，《日出》捕捉到了一个美国人的矛盾:努力协调农业到城市进程的变化而引起的身份巨变。电影中巨大的变化说明乡村的自然价值是可以通过与城市的接触而更新变化的，一个城市化和工业化进程中的美国所面临的威胁是可以化解的。现代进程不会毁灭掉美国身份的价值，但是会考验并证明美国人的力量，保证美国从农业社会到工业社会发展的经验的连贯。

表演：选角非常合适，眼神不会说谎。默片无台词，演员纯靠肢体动作和夸张的面部表情来表现情绪。

摄影（照明）：固定镜头偏多，有些许推和摇镜头。透视法（景深镜头），长镜头（镜头时常+场面调度）。11分钟时的推进移动长镜头接连呈现3个视角。景别以中、近景为主，辅以特写镜头。照明自然，无特殊风格。

美术（场景设计、选景、服装）：白富美住处倾斜的桌子和游乐场的场景设计。最后溺水情节的场景设置很厉害。

导演（视角、风格）：茂瑙代表作,影史最佳默片之一。好莱坞经典通俗剧与德国表现主义的完美结合。这部影片则标志着默片时代最高艺术水准的文艺爱情片。声音和台词都近乎失去了存在的意义：高潮处无需字幕卡亦可让观众理解人物心理，对白则沦落为背景噪音。但也正是在这一年有声片诞生了，历史无情啊。