The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Metropolis

Tools    







(Someone resize this^^ it won't let me)
The virtually undisputed grandfather of sci-fi (and noir), Fritz Lang, spawned many pivotal films in and after the silent era, most notably The Dr. Mabuse trilogy, M, and Woman In The Moon. Because of the success of Metropolis (1927), Lang was able to expand his vision of the crazy world in his eyes as if making brilliant statements was easy to subsume for him. Lang came out of the German Expressionist school and built upon the foundation with his satirically sinister but highly imaginative and resourceful filmmaking to greatly influence the likes of Bunuel, mostly through handling character with circumstance, and Kubrick, as if 2001 or Strangelove weren't obvious enough examples.



Question of the hour (or forever, we got time): There has been a re-emergence of sci-fi in today’s theaters, more or less due to The Matrix trilogy and disaster films (Armageddon, Independence Day) up to the popular sci-fi of today which includes District 9, the new Star Wars trilogy, Children of Men (less successful), and, apparently, Super 8. Is there a noticeable influence from Metropolis? Does any element of Fritz Lang remain relevant in the genre? How has sci-fi, blockbuster and not, progressed since 1927? Has CGI become the autotune of cinema (PN)?



Tell me Aladdin didn't rip this off



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Sure did, and that's one of my fave parts of Aladdin.

Metropolis is very forward thinking but it's also a Biblical allegory. That's one of the things about silent movies, no matter what country made them; they tried to show people things which they had never seen (and this certainly did that), but they also try to couch it in relatable terms. Metropolis is also a warning about temptation and that temptation not only involves sex but technology.

Honestly, all I wanted to do here was post a super cool piece of art by Tony Roberts called Hardware Honeymoon but the only image I can find of it is tiny. I suppose I'll post it anyway so you guys can scamper for your magnifying glasses/binoculars. Be back later on.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



I watched 40 minutes of it last night before I gave up, so I don't really have any right to be here, but I honestly don't know if I'll give the movie a chance to finish it. Especially since Target had the Back to the Future collection on Blu-ray on sale for $15 today. Anyway, I found it kinda of depressing and not really that engaging. I thought it would be a good movie if they remade it, perhaps with Leonardo DiCaprio. What I'm curious about - and maybe I should finish it to find out - is why is the robot, who I think is supposed to be the perfect worker, a woman? That is a female robot, right? It looks like it has boobs and I think I saw during the credits that a woman plays it. Maybe I better double check... (double checks) Brigitte Helm?



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
She is not a perfect worker. She is actually supposed to fake out and lead the workers to act a certain way, but she does no work, unless you mean that shakin' her booty is work.



Oh, I thought she was supposed to be the perfect worker or something. I remember an inventor and something about creating the perfect worker who nobody could tell the difference between it and a human being. I see that Metropolis is on Blu-ray and looks nice. Wish I had that -- my DVD was put out by Madacy Entertainment and is really cheap. The title screens were cut off a little - the text that is. I don't know if that's the case on every version of Metropolis.

I had hoped I'd finish the film, but truth be told, I felt a little ill and still do tonight.



I've seen this one a year ago on the Kino dvd. It's definitely one of Lang's best films, (my favourite film from Lang is still M) and i must say that it's a very influencial "cyberpunk" film, though that term hadnt been used yet. While i was compiling my top 50 list yesterday, i was very tempted to add this one in. However, i have to admit that it has aged/dated considerably.



there's a frog in my snake oil
Originally Posted by wintertriangles
Is there a noticeable influence from Metropolis? Does any element of Fritz Lang remain relevant in the genre? How has sci-fi, blockbuster and not, progressed since 1927? Has CGI become the autotune of cinema
I wonder whether he influenced the 'dirty future' form of sci-fi that still carries on in the likes of Children of Men? IE the future being imperfect/industrial/worn in both a visual & social way - even if this aspect is one side of a coin in Lang's vision.

I imagine the 'silver screen' wizardy they used provided a bigger scale for fantasies etc to work on. And CGI these days loves *edited* chomping its way over giant vistas, and leaving the participants as dangling details. Maybe it's time to go back to the dramatic close-up?
__________________
Virtual Reality chatter on a movie site? Got endless amounts of it here. Reviews over here



There are some modern sci-fi films which were influenced by Metropolis, take Dark City for example. But there are only a few. Most sci-fi films these days still borrow heavily from Star Wars or Close Encounters of the third kind. Of course you have Dark City, a very Metropolis/BladeRunner kind of film, but i can see the numbers declining. Furthermore, more sci-fi movies nowadays seem to blend horror (eg. Event Horizon). Not forgetting those popcorn sci-fi ET-like movies like Super 8 or Paul. So i feel that science fiction has loss much of its seriousness ...



Question of the hour (or forever, we got time): There has been a re-emergence of sci-fi in today’s theaters, more or less due to The Matrix trilogy and disaster films (Armageddon, Independence Day) up to the popular sci-fi of today which includes District 9, the new Star Wars trilogy, Children of Men (less successful), and, apparently, Super 8. Is there a noticeable influence from Metropolis? Does any element of Fritz Lang remain relevant in the genre? How has sci-fi, blockbuster and not, progressed since 1927? Has CGI become the autotune of cinema (PN)?
I think there's a noticeable line of influence between Metropolis and The Matrix, at least, in the exploitation of "the masses" (though the latter has less to do with class), revolt, and the quasi-messianic allegory. I also think of it when I think of the popular view of science and technology run-amok as a theme (insert Jeff Goldblum browbeating Dinosaur Tycoon here: "you were so busy asking if you could clone dinosaurs, that you never stopped to wonder if you should.") People in movies are still accusing the "head" and "hands" of progress of being heartless.

A big thing that seems to be missing from these that was in Metropolis is the ideology of class struggle, but maybe that has something to do with the fact that sci-fi as a literary genre developed largely in Cold War America, and I think class is still kind of taboo for a lot of people here.

The idea of a vertically-segregated city shows up in a lot of Japanese pop-media. Notably Final Fantasy 7 and the manga/anime Battle Angel Alita. My guess is that the awareness of the movie in these media is somehow indirectly related to Metropolis through the 1950s manga of that title by Osamu Tezuka (which oddly enough doesn't copy the city as I remember it, only the idea of a female robot).



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
My guess is that the awareness of the movie in these media is somehow indirectly related to Metropolis through the 1950s manga of that title by Osamu Tezuka (which oddly enough doesn't copy the city as I remember it, only the idea of a female robot).
I only saw the anime which is probably much different, but I think the general direction of the plot is rather similar to Lang's film with the principal difference being that the analog of Fredersen's son is an outsider to the city and the class conflict is blurred by the lower, working classes being entirely robotic.

It is interesting that Mark F said it was first a Biblical allegory. I haven't seen this film in quite some time, it feels, and I do not know what knew revelations the restored version holds -- if I remember correctly, most of the missing bits were during the final act, which mostly involved escaping the lower portions of the city -- but the Marxist elements of the film are strangely potent, whether Lang intended them or not.

Most prominent is the naming of the messianic figure: the Mediator. I find it is an interesting choice of name, since it implies impermanence whereas a messiah is often an eternal figure. The reason for this choice, I would claim here, relates directly and unambiguously to Hegel's idea of the vanishing mediator which is an intermediary stage of transition between the thesis and antithesis. As Marx's entire philosophy is largely a materialist adaptation of Hegelianism, the connection here is obvious. Class struggle is a purely dialectical movement. The dictatorship of the proletariat instituted at the end of the film is precisely this sort of mediator. Once their work is done, we will have already reached the resolution.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
The man Jesus is often called the Mediator between God and Humankind.

I'm going to get in here after I rewatch it again. I mean, I've already reviewed the restored version elsewhere, but I don't want to repeat myself. Let me see if I can find what I said last time.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
The man Jesus is often called the Mediator between God and Humankind.
Woah. I was not aware of that association! I wonder what this says about Hegel or, perhaps more interestingly for me, the relation between Christianity and Marxism.

I need to watch it again myself (with those ideas in mind).



but the Marxist elements of the film are strangely potent, whether Lang intended them or not.
I'm sure he was at least aware of them, but it's hard to parse just what the Marxism and the Christianity are supposed to mean. What did you make of the ending, when 'The Mediator' successfully reconciles the proles with his father?



I have not seen it yet,or i do,but do not remember...i heard it was Hitler favorite film



Chappie doesn't like the real world
I'm sure he was at least aware of them, but it's hard to parse just what the Marxism and the Christianity are supposed to mean. What did you make of the ending, when 'The Mediator' successfully reconciles the proles with his father?
Well, there was that Tower of Babel analogy where the "mind" and "hands" spoke the same language, but could not understand each other. I took the ending as a sort of resolution of that. The workers and owners coming together through a mutual understanding of the heart. Or at least attempting to.

I want to ask about the triangles. There are several images of triangles throughout the movie. What did everyone make of those? I have my own ideas, but I want to see what others think first.



Chappie doesn't like the real world
Oh, and I wanted to mention how that scene where Maria/the machine is an exotic dancer is both extremely creepy and one utterly hilarious at the same time.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.

I finally got around to watching this again, this time with Sarah. I'm glad I did. If you have the time and just let it wash over you (preferably the restored version with clean, clear subritles), it moves along very quickly. On the other hand, it does seem to cram in a whole lotta plot into one film, but somehow it mostly resolves itself at the end.


First off, the main reasons for watching Metropolis are the super sets, special effects and all the elements of the production design. Sometimes the camerawork appears hand-held, especially in closeups of some of the "action scenes". Then again, much as his fellow countryman F.W. Murnau did in his American film Sunrise (also 1927), Lang uses all kinds of photo and editing trickery to incorporate paranoia and disorientation; one of my fave of these is the shot of all the eyes superimposed together when the rich young men of the upper world are seduced by the "robotic" Maria and begin to fight and kill each other over her and her charms. That eye shot certainly reminded me of some of Dali's later work in films. There are so many spectacular shots, sets and effects that one could write a book detailing the creation and subliminal effect of each one, but this is not the place for that, although it would be interesting to hear some of other viewer's favorite visual flourishes.

As far as plot points go, maybe I can list a few and see what people think of each one and how they may help/hinder the overall film and what it's trying to accomplish.


1. Metropolis is a huge city where the rich and powerful have a wonderful life consisting mostly of modern technology and entertainment while the workers live underground as almost slaves and never even see the light of day. What I would like to know is whether Metropolis is supposed to be representative of an entire futuristic world, an anomoly or something parents tell their children as a bedtime story beginning with "Once upon a time... ".


2. There is a saintly woman named Maria (Brigitte Helm) who tries to pick up the spirits of the workers by telling them that a Mediator will come one day to reconcile the Hands (the workers) with the Head [the founder of Metropolis, Joh Frederson (Alfred Abel)]. Maria speaks to people in front of a group of crosses and attracts Joh's son Freder (Gustav Fröhlich) who decides that he could be the Mediator. I'm not especially up on my German, but Joh sure seems like John, so we could have the characters of John and Mary somehow coming together to "create" a Mediator named Freder, which sounds a lot like "Freedom".


3. Joh has a rival in the character of a "mad scientist" named Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge, Dr. Mabuse himself). The scientist seems similar to both Dr. Frankenstein and Dr. Strangelove. The reason Rotwang and Joh are rivals dates back to the fact that they both loved the same woman, Hel, who married Joh but died giving birth to Freder. Rotwang invents a robot which can appear human and kidnaps Maria to turn this robot into a Maria who will incite the masses.


4. The world of the workers and the way in which Joh interracts with it seems to have also inspired Charles Chaplin's use of technology and class struggle in Modern Times. I even see a strong resemblance between the appearance of the leader of Chaplin's factory and Joh Frederson. This also brings me to the concept of how the technology works in the utopian upper part of the city. Near the end, after the workers have destroyed the heart machine and power is shut off above ground, we see all the ground transportation piled up in what appears to be a freeway. We also see none of the planes and other flying vehicles in the air. This implies that all modes of transportation above ground run due to the Heart Machine and not due to something resembling gasoline.


5. The final third of the film turns into something resembling a disaster flick when the bottom levels flood and all the workers' children have to be saved by Freder, Maria and Josaphat (Theodor Loos), a man in the employ of Joh who is also Freder's good friend. Ultimately, it turns the entire film into a story about Family and how all the characters seem to believe that it's the most important thing in their lives, even if they'd occasionally rather wreak destruction, burn "witches", and have wild dancing revels while doing so.


6. I've left out many other points which almost seem superfluous but are included in the film. These include the relationship of 11811 [Georgy] (Erwin Biswanger), a worker, with Freder, and the way the Thin Man (Fritz Rasp) spies on Freder and intercepts Georgy. Both the characters of Georgy and the Thin Man were previously only discussed in intertitles because they were part of the lost footage, but now with the restoration, what they have to do with the film is much clearer. They may be incidental characters but they help to flesh out themes of friendship and mistrust.


Metropolis and Blade Runner

I realize that this is a superficial summary of some of the content of Metropolis, but I'm going to leave it at this for now since I'm still waiting for others to discuss it in more detailed or specific terms. My rating is
, but my classic rating is obviously
.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
After watching M last night on Netflix (last night for it to be on their via streaming FYI) I'm going to give this a watch as it is on streaming.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
Real quick here before I write a full review.

This movie was an A+ to me. Brilliant. The set pieces were so well done that it was difficult to see where the set began and the backdrop/matte paintings began.

Very imaginative. Some of the most iconic shots in all of cinema. Maria coming to life, and of course the Tower of Babel. So much activity with trains, planes, and automobiles moving around within that lingering long held shot.

I liked the idea of the rich spoiled kid going to lower himself to work with the people and common. It's an archetype right out of the Bible, as mark pointed out, the word Mediator does mean Christ. I dig the head and hands need a heart symbolism and imagery.

The sequence with the machine becoming an exotic dancer edited to the delirious reactions of Freder laid up in best are amazing. The actress' dance is spectacular and super imposed with the eye shots and ghasts and jealous lust-filled screams is something altogether new at the time and very cool. Framing this is are the actors doing the creepy seven sin's costumes and death, enhancing the Biblical allegory... does Maria even becoming an Eve figure tempting the men into sin? Probably.

At this point the film was an "A+" for me. Easy, but the last 40 minutes melt into mechanism and clockwork - pun intended. Maria drives the workers to revolt and the last 1/3 of the film with mayhem, mobs running around, and frantic music take me a bit out of the picture. To me this was an exercise in herding extras around the movie set as much as anything else. Not only did it take me out of the movie, but the sequence just went on and on and on. It resorts to the woman tied up scenario, a typical fist fight between Freder and Rotwang and the nice "hey suddenly everything is OK" contrived happy ending and the overly pushy and staged "Hey mediator make the head and hands shake hands" bit was too forced at the end. And then that's it. Very weak ending, of course the first 2/3s of the movie are top 100 material.

Grade: A- but withstanding the influence of the movie I can easily forgive the bits that appear weak to me.