Metropolis (1927)

Country: German

Released: January 10th, 1927

Genre: Science Fiction

Director: Fritz Lang

Producer: Erich Pommer

Writer: Thea von Habrou

Finding a decent copy of Fritz Lang's Metropolis harder than I thought it would be. Most complete versions I came across are in German, with subtitles perplexingly restricted by software constraints that I have yet to understand. I eventually had to settle on a two hour cut released before the latest restoration in 2010 that lack thirty minutes of footage and attempts to replace it with textual descriptions a la Gold Rush.

Not ideal I admit, but good enough.

Metropolis needs no introduction. It boasts the distinction of being among only a handful of silent films that average movie-goers have probably heard of. I certainly had, although like most my knowledge was limited to images of its more famous set-pieces, the most iconic of which is the android on the poster above. Because of this, and because I'm coming off finishing Philip K. Dick's Do Android's Dream of Electric Sheep, I went into Metropolis expecting it to delve into robotics as an avenue to explore themes regarding humanity and sentience.

It was far from that.

The story takes place inside a socialist propaganda poster circa 1927, or more specifically in the dystopian city of Metropolis, where rich live in opulent high-rises enjoying decadent pleasures while the poor are forced to toil in subterranean dwellings, running the machines that power the city above. We follow Freder (Gustav Fröhlich), the son of the master of Metropolis Jon Fredersen (Alfred Abel). After discovering the toil the workers suffer Freder pleads to his father to help them, but he coldly refutes his son. To get closer to the workers Freder trades places with one of them and discovers Maria (Brigitte Helm), his love interest and a religious leader who talks of messianic figure called the Mediator who will come to free them. Meanwhile Jon and the mad scientist Rotwang (Rudolf Klein-Rogge) conspire to stop the workers by creating a robot in Maria's image and having it lead the proletariat in a violent revolt, offering the justification to put them down violently. The robot does just that (as well as whipping up the rich denizens of the city in a lustful frenzy), and Freder must race against time to stop the machine and save his love. The film ends with Rotwang and his precious robot dying, and Freder bringing the workers and his father together in harmony.

As you can see, Blade Runner this is not. The film has more in common with Battleship Potemkin, or even with The 10 Commandments than with most science fiction. Ebert described it's socialist messages as "angry" but I don't entirely agree. Metropolis is couched far more in the optimism of unity then in the anger-fuelled class struggles of most socialist cinema. The workers are portrayed as maligned but as reactionary and violent as well, while Jon is both cold but also sympathetic in the personal tragedies he's suffered. The final image of both parties coming together underscores this themes of compromise.

Where Metropolis succeeds however is not in it's story but in it's visuals and staging. Whenever Lang focuses the camera on one of his grandiose stages or his carefully constructed miniatures we're allowed to breath in the world he's crafted the film comes alive.

Images of the central tower...

...or of the metropolis itself...

...are the highlight of the movie and have since become some of it's most enduring images. Rarely however does the camera itself come alive. Particularly after watching The General, where the camera moves along with the action and the editing feels seamless, Metropolis is suffocatingly static. Lang choses to stage his shots and let the movement stem from the actors or the machines, the camera serves as a passive observer. This would be problematic but fortunately for us Lang knows how to set up a shot.

Unfortunately stunning visuals do not a movie make, no matter how much James Cameron or Michael Bay wish it so, and you still need a narrative or the illusion of one to string the shots together. Unfortunately this is where Metropolis stumbles. The dichotomy of visuals and story-telling is nowhere near as erroneous as Dr. Mabuse, der Spieler (no need to dwell on that mess too much), but it's still problematic. Large portions of the plot meander around, and needlessly complicated twists or character choices undermine the story. One particularly egregious moment sees our hero locked in a room for no adequate reason besides that the story doesn't need him for anything, bringing the film's pace to a screeching halt. Then, ten minutes later, the doors somehow open allowing our hero to escape and reach the next story "checkpoint." Much like it's robotic antagonist the story feels mechanical. This is compounded by odd editing, which occasionally rears it's head with a premature cut or erratic sequence.

Furthermore certain directorial choices feel hokey. One scene which is particularly bad is when the android tries to seduce the elite of Metropolis' Yoshiwara district (Fun Fact: named after Edo's pleasure district during the Tokugawa period) to spark a lust-fuelled riot. It starts performing what I assume is supposed to be a hypnotic burlesque performance but ends up looking like a amateur stripper with parkinson's doing the "Walk like an Egyptian" dance. The camera cuts back and forth between the spastic performance and the audience gazing in increasingly fervent desire, and the whole thing ends up being incredibly baffling. I would say that I can't hold this against the movie because of the time period but come on! The Moulin Rouge was founded as early as 1889 so they sure as hell knew what good cabaret is supposed to look like.

Dumb dances aside earlier I drew a comparison with Battleship Potemkin but that's not entirely fair. Fritz Lang has a clearer conception of character and while the movie is far from being apolitical I wouldn't call it a propaganda film. I was especially pleased that Jon, the main antagonist for much of the film, is not a moustache-twirling bad guy. Once we learn that his wife died during his son's birth his cold, detached persona is justified and he becomes more tragic than evil. Unfortunately this is somewhat undercut by Rotwang, who is a moustache-twirling bad guy and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Come to think of it, he's the first instance of the mad scientist trope I've seen so far. Huh, well at least the movie has that going for it.

Still it's not much, and ultimately its story flaws keep Metropolis from achieving true greatness. I appreciate it's use of special effects (seriously, I cannot stress enough how cool the miniatures are) and understand why this is still revered as a foundational piece of cinema, but I just could not get invested in the plot enough to fully enjoy it. That's a bit of a peeve of mine: For me visuals are meant to enhance a story, not the other way around. It's why I'm lukewarm towards films like Gravity and Avatar but adore works like Mad Max: Fury Road and The General. While the latter two have just as much eye-candy (Yes, I'm comparing The General with Avatar, sue me) their characters are interesting and likeable enough to make you invested in the effects.

Metropolis does not accomplish this. It is a film that promises a visually stunning world and meaningful story but only delivers on one. Others will probably get more out of it, but I personally was quite disappointed.