Wild Rose

I can appreciate that the silent era doesn't appeal to all modern viewers; there was a time when for various reasons I'd have said the same for myself. Among other differences in style that may be a turn-off, no few silent pictures are characterized by a stilted brusqueness in their direction and plot development, an air sometimes furthered by especially frequent insertion of intertitles, that lends to a marked sense that the proceedings are staged, and contrived, instead of totally natural in their storytelling. Along with that notion is a heightened feeling about some silent features that they are "simpler entertainment for a simpler time." However one looks upon such approaches to film-making, it's noteworthy that this is also seen in cinematic traditions outside Hollywood. This is hardly to cast aspersions on filmmaker Sun Yu, or on 1932's 'Wild Rose,' though as this picture begins one readily discerns these idiosyncrasies and a certain lightness in tone, that alll serve to invite the feeling that regardless of what story is about to be told, the title is of a more frivolous nature.

Thankfully this movie is mostly served by that light touch, rather than undermined by it, for despite whatever dramatic beats may come, overall this is less a tragedy than it is a comedy (in the classical sense of centuries past). Indeed, if bereft of the utmost flowery language and artistic flair, one recognizes a kinship with stage plays of years past, and of other early films that weren't quite "adventures" but which nonetheless fostered that air of "discovering and making one's way in the world" as an otherwise more straightforward tale is told, with light humor and warmth peppered throughout. Even with the noted indelicacies, Sun demonstrates perfectly capable writing and direction to bring to life the story of a somewhat free-spirited young woman from the countryside who finds herself thrust into an urban landscape where image, class, social standing, and privilege are new, alien concepts. By one means or another the cast seem marginally constrained in their performances by the directness of the presentation, yet all do very well to breathe vitality into their characters - with Wang Renmei and Jin Yan naturally standing out most, given the chief roles - while those behind the scenes contribute splendid sets, costume design, and hair and makeup work.

Whether as a question of limitations of the production, or the state of prints prior to digital preservation, there are instances where the fundamental framing of the image, and the editing, feels troubled, yet by and large this is rather well made. On the other hand, I would note poor lighting that sometimes makes scenes difficult to parse (though in fairness, this is hardly an issue exclusive to this alone). Most concerning of all to me in terms of this picture itself is that within the last ten minutes the plot takes a hard turn that almost fully breaks with what what it had been building all along. I understand the context, and the purpose, and despite the shift Sun still brings us a story that is complete, cohesive, and coherent. The fact remains that all of a sudden there's a substantial sea change in the saga, and moreover, the plot is resolved rather obliquely and with a curtness that's flummoxing if not altogether off-putting. I'm not sure that choice best served the narrative, and for this alone I wonder if I'm not being too kind in my words.

At select points there are facets that speak directly to Chinese society and culture at the time - primarily that last-minute leap, but also seen elsewhere such as the bit of play that Xiao Feng and her village friends are engaged in when she first meaningfully meets Jiang Po, or smaller details like food and drink. One might well observe, though, that even as 'Wild Rose' takes place in Shanghai and is in some measure a commentary on conditions in the country at the time, with minor adjustments the narrative could very easily be adapted to most any culture and locale (a sad reflection on the world generally). Why, though no specific example comes to mind, I'm all but positive the likes of Mary Pickford or Olive Thomas must have made a movie with much the same plot, or at least, it feels like something they might have starred in. If that doesn't speak to the universal language and power of cinema, then I don't know what does. I couldn't possibly call this perfect, above all because I feel like the ending surely could have been rewritten with better connectivity to the preceding length. Yet more than not this can claim strong narrative and scene writing, and with these standing out the most, ultimately most any subjective weaknesses one might see are pretty minor, and don't severely detract from the viewing experience. In any case, broadly speaking the worst I think one can really say about this is that it shares some of the same characteristics of many of its contemporaries, and with that the question is mostly one just of personal preference. And as to the last bit - well, again, I at least understand the Why of the inclusion.

At length I think 'Wild Rose' stops a little short of being a must-see. All the same, whether one is a devoted cinephile, an avid fan of the silent era, or extra keen on exploring international cinema, far and away this feature holds up very well, and is worth exploring. Anyone who isn't already enamored of the style won't find anything to change their mind, but for whatever criticisms one might reasonably assess, ninety years later Sun's movie remains a fairly solid classic.