This movie could be considered, in a fashion, the inverse of Murnau's "Sunrise." The two major features are roughly the same, the attempted drowning that doesn't happen and the accidental one that does. However, the story and the style that go around it are almost complete opposites.
"Sunrise" is about a lower class man tempted by a "spider woman" from the city, whereas "A Place in the Sun" has the man not tempted but actually appealed to the upper class woman. The former is, in its way, a criticism of the modern city and represents the idyllic farmer as the hero, whereas this movie twists the American Dream by almost giving it to the hero before removing everything from underneath him. "Sunrise" is a silent film, and "A Place in the Sun" does a lot of expressionist work with sound. Both "Sunrise" and "A Place in the Sun" juxtapose cheery and light framings with dark and moody chiaroscuro. However it is in the use of these juxtaposed "moods" that "A Place in the Sun" shows itself as a better movie.
The problem with "Sunrise" is that it takes great effort to show the evil temptations of the city-scape, and then sets the city as the place where love is rekindled. In "A Place in the Sun", however, the relationship between entrapment and freedom are kept to their separate realms. Shelly Winters' room is a dark and brooding place, she wears grays and heavy coats, everything about her is hunkered down and weighted. Elizabeth Taylor lives in a world of whites and light, and even though Angela is technically the more shallow character, the direction absolutely refuses to let the audience not fall in love with her. It is in that stark contrast that we relate to Montgomery Clift's brooding George Eastman, who doesn't really mean to create problems but due to his own insecurities and humility thinks that the Dream is impossible and that he must settle for what's left--until he suddenly finds himself within reach of all he's ever wanted.
"A Place in the Sun" certainly succeeds in being an "American Tragedy," and what's more, it works in a very logical way, especially with the trial scene. Put yourself in the jury's shoes: would you have convicted him? This tragedy is both a result of a character's flaw and irrefutable circumstance, a strange alignment of fate and floundering, and it works really well.
--PolarisDiB
"Sunrise" is about a lower class man tempted by a "spider woman" from the city, whereas "A Place in the Sun" has the man not tempted but actually appealed to the upper class woman. The former is, in its way, a criticism of the modern city and represents the idyllic farmer as the hero, whereas this movie twists the American Dream by almost giving it to the hero before removing everything from underneath him. "Sunrise" is a silent film, and "A Place in the Sun" does a lot of expressionist work with sound. Both "Sunrise" and "A Place in the Sun" juxtapose cheery and light framings with dark and moody chiaroscuro. However it is in the use of these juxtaposed "moods" that "A Place in the Sun" shows itself as a better movie.
The problem with "Sunrise" is that it takes great effort to show the evil temptations of the city-scape, and then sets the city as the place where love is rekindled. In "A Place in the Sun", however, the relationship between entrapment and freedom are kept to their separate realms. Shelly Winters' room is a dark and brooding place, she wears grays and heavy coats, everything about her is hunkered down and weighted. Elizabeth Taylor lives in a world of whites and light, and even though Angela is technically the more shallow character, the direction absolutely refuses to let the audience not fall in love with her. It is in that stark contrast that we relate to Montgomery Clift's brooding George Eastman, who doesn't really mean to create problems but due to his own insecurities and humility thinks that the Dream is impossible and that he must settle for what's left--until he suddenly finds himself within reach of all he's ever wanted.
"A Place in the Sun" certainly succeeds in being an "American Tragedy," and what's more, it works in a very logical way, especially with the trial scene. Put yourself in the jury's shoes: would you have convicted him? This tragedy is both a result of a character's flaw and irrefutable circumstance, a strange alignment of fate and floundering, and it works really well.
--PolarisDiB