Charles Farrell and Mary Duncan chat at the diner in F.W. Murnau's film, "City Girl" (1930).
David D. Robbins Jr. | The Fade Out
“City Girl” (1930), directed by F.W. Murnau
Eureka! films/Blu-Ray edition
F.W. Murnau’s “City Girl” (1930) has been the unfortunate victim of fate and timing. The film was created right at the cusp of the sound age. It was actually filmed with some sound elements added in post-production so as not to appear dated. But the sound-version has disappeared, lost among the ghostly heap of old silent-era films every cineophile would give their right arm to hear. “City Girl” also falls under the large shadow of Murnau’s “Sunrise”, often considered the greatest silent film ever made. The films are meant to be companion pieces, and reflect similar ethics, but with inverted storylines. “City Girl” wraps around a fairly simple premise: Disillusioned city girl falls for country boy and dreams of a better life, only to find oppression exists among the wheat fields too. It’s plainly drawn, with title-screens and all, but feels lyrical as opera.
A young farm kid, Lem Tustine (played by Charles Farrell), goes to the city of broad shoulders to sell his family’s wheat crop at a decent price. While he waits out the prices, he runs into a waitress named Kate (Mary Duncan), who takes a shine to his rural ways of saying a prayer before he eats. She and the other waitresses spot him as a fish out of water, and are charmed by his gentlemanly ways. Lem sells the wheat for as much as he can get, but at a smaller amount than his father requested. Then he goes back to the busy diner for one last word with Kate. He nervously and indirectly tries to convince her to come back with him to his home in rural Minnesota. He leaves before she can decide, because he has a train to catch. Well, he doesn’t make that train, and she bumps into him and they get married and go back to his home. But when they arrive, the father thinks she’s a trollop and suspects she wants something more than just a husband. What ensues is some of the prettiest cinema you’ll ever see. In fact, Terrence Malick said his “Days of Heaven” (1978), with its wide open prairie spaces was influenced by Murnau’s picture. Parts of the plot are certainly daffy, like the conveniently quick marriage, but the movie still manages to touch the soul.
“City Girl” is a film with a real purity of heart. Of course, the modern film-goer may see naivete and an overly simplistic bit of allegory. But there’s something subtle and complex about the richness of these characters as they’re set against their backdrops. When Lem looks into the diner window, after he’s missed his train, he sees a buzzing hive of confusing and suburban activity. Men in suits rudely muscle-in for spots at the counter. There’s also a scene where Lem has to threaten a patron with a thrashing, when he gets fresh with Kate. Then in a twist, Kate goes to the farm and what we think should be the rural open-arms of Bible-believing, hard-working soil-toilers, instead turns into a landscape of violence, aggression and male dominance. Murnau is sophisticated enough to avoid coloring either rural or suburb life as the ideal. In the end, it isn’t the landscape that creates the person, but rather the individual who decides what type of person they are to become. To use a colloquial phrase, city folk ain’t much different than a hayseed. You can take the city girl to the country or the country boy to the city but the two places still remain the same. I’m not sure if it was Murnau’s intent or not, but the film does suggest a sense of triumphing American individualism. Not a nationalistic or geographic kind of thinking, but one where people should be judged by who they really are. Mass thought and easy stereotypes are to be distrusted. That mode of thought has no place in this picture.
There are also some stunningly beautiful scenes, like the father sitting at the table cutting a piece of bread. You can see the extreme facial details, with a sort of haloed blur around him like you’d get in old Civil War photography. Also, I kept wondering how in the world they did those night scenes. I assume their was at least one giant lamp light. When you watch the film you’ll know what I mean. You need enough light to illuminate the scene, but not so much so that appears contrived. It’s a difficult balance, especially in the late 20s.
Note: This is about as good as an 81-year-old movie will look, and you have Eureka! films to thank. They’ve encoded the HD master in 1080p AVC format, leaving the film grain just as you would see it in a 33mm showing. Bravo. (Some film companies actually fix films too much, washing out grain with blur, or a change in tonal quality. Eureka! also provides instructions on how to watch the film in the back of their 28-age insert. Yes, real cinema-crazies for you, and I love it. Just so you know, the film was shot in 1.19:1 aspect ratio — which means the movie should be watched in pillar-box. They also suggest that since the film was originally shot in 24 frames per second, you should turn off any “motion smoothing” functions. Okay, for most of us cinematic geeks, this is a no-brainer. But I still find it beautiful that they spell it out. Amen to film companies that love movies so much they make sure you don’t view Murnau’s work improperly. Watch a YouTube clip of the movie below. It begins with the beautiful scene where the two newlyweds are asleep, heading back to Minnesota. Then you get the glorious landscape shots, dwarfing the two lovers. (No doubt the kind of scenes Malick found pretty enough to influence his “Days of Heaven”.) Notice in the latter quarter of the clip, the moving dolly shot and the great hoe-down music.
theirbatedbreath.wordpress.com 