One thing that really stood out to me in this film was how boh Frederson and Rotwang use the AI to manipulate and control the working class. Frederson uses it as a mouthpiece to make the people believe what he wants them too. And Rotwang, as a kind of insane guy ostracized to the fringe of society uses the AI to prey on anger and rage to incite a false rebellion. Of course the need for rebellion is very real and necessary but the way he and the AI orchestrated it would've cost the workers their childrens lives. Their losses would've outweighed their gains, they'd have been more downtrodden and crushed than before and likely easier to control again. The fact that a film in 1927 predicted AI as a tool to manipulate and control the poor, working and uneducated in society is kind of mind boggling
With the 100th anniversary of the debut of METROPOLIS coming in 2027, I really hope that there is a re-release of this cinematic masterpiece into movie theatres so that cinephiles (like me!) can have the opportunity to see this film on the big screen (just imagine what it would look like on an I-MAX screen!!).
Great break down. Took me 64 years to finally watch this great film. My hope is that another collectors print shows up that can be better supply for those scenes barely saved, or the better and newer A.I. film restoration techniques are employed once more to bringing this iconic film to diamond clarity throughout.
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as the "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
I really enjoyed your explanation of the movie " Metropolis ". It brought light to the movie. Next time I see it, I will enjoy it even better. Thank you.
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as the "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
it told the truth of the cannibalism going on in the war and i the camps and was a warning from the past to the future of what evil men would do to an innocent girl and try and frame her as being the whore of Babylon by giving AI the hologram of her body and face .... Jesus is the mediator
The notion of mediation is associated with class collaboration, which the Nazis and fascists supported, believing the classes should be United on the basis or race or nationhood. The film definitely is anti-capitalist, and has criticism of inequality, however, a real Marxist creator who sought for a synthesis or solution to class struggle in the film would advocate full worker control, taking control of the machines as opposed to destroying them, as opposed to to the classes cooperating. I'm writing about for HSC, and with this fascistic message, I don't want it to sound like I'm supporting it.
A better perspective to explore is the warped psyche of Fritz Lang over the transparent symbolism the viewer wants to apply. I got way more cinematically from The New Babylon 1929 (Soviet film with Russian title cards) than Metropolis. The Shostakovich score helped. The score to Metropolis ran out of steam into triteness after about 20 minutes.
Awesome video. I have a collaborative film seminar for my University film course in an hour where we'll be discussing Metropolis. I was really struggling to come up with interesting ideas to bring with me, and this video has saved me. Love it. Earned a sub.
We now can see Metropolis as a utopia, with the working class kept underground where we can neither see nor smell them. Of course the robot was designed to replace them, as they were just biological machines to begin with. Metropolis failed because it could not be true to the vision yet in the end, the workers return to their true nature, mindless creatures marching again up the steps of the Cathedral. The movie ends as it begins, with the workers as an anonymous mass, food for the machine god. What else could they have been good for?
Thanks for the insight Charles! I'm not sure I would agree that it ends exactly the same as it begun; there appears to be a utopian sensibility, or at least a small semblance of hope, that characterises the ending (particularly with the handshake between Grot and Fredersen).
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
The Moloch scene depicts a monkish preacher in a pulpit who holds up a reformation-era German bible (Luther) pointing to the whore of Babylon (Revelation 17:9) followed by the wraiths of the seven mountains upon which she sits. Invokes the apocalyptic sense of Revelation that its audience would be familiar with.
You conveniently skipped over all religious/ Christian themes. Are you scared to talk about that or did you really not notice them? I think there an important part of the film Freder is clearly the Christ figure.
You raise a good point - this is certainly an important element of the film; something for me to address in a separate video! I am curious why you suggest fear would be the reason for its neglect in this particular video? I suppose some people may be afraid to speak on the value of religion given the increasingly secular society in which we appear to live (religious adherence is at times demonised, or at the very least, stigmatised) - but its value should not be understated, especially in times of chaos.
@@jeddle Because I have a brother who is a public school teacher. He told me that if he were to mention Jesus or bring up a bible story in his class (even to mention how it connects to something else, like say why there are 7 days in a week) he could lose his job. I confess that I haven't watched a lot of your videos but I do get a scholastic vibe from your channel. I though it might be contacted to a school or University. I was expecting this video would mention Christianity as a theme as I think it (along with the other themes you mentioned) is key to understanding the film. When you didn't mention it I thought there must have been a reason. I may have misjudged.
@@turtleisasturtledoes6707 Thanks for clarifying - I appreciate where you are coming from. But yes, absolutely no agenda or prejudice in our videos - just tough to cover everything in a single video (which we try to make concise). Will certainly look to address this aspect in the future.
Though Lang is an atheist, raised a Catholic, he can use biblical themes that would be readily identified and thus he can piggyback that innate understanding the audience has.
@@jeddle exactly my point Above in separate comment. "should not be understated", and yet you do just that, I'm sure, in your other vids too. Pls look up 'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit' by Dr. E Michael Jones, also Fidelity Press (his own), bc it is banned on Amazon / YT now, merely bc he speaks the Truth about Usury etc., also see his 'Barren Metal'. 1000s of Films can come out of his 2 books there alone, and they must be done to wake u all up from ur slumber.
THREE or FOUR both work. If you are are focussing on three poems, three paragraphs makes sense! Four may be too long depending on how quickly you write.
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
Hitler arguably enjoyed the ideological ambivalence of this film (i.e. it was not adverse to his own political stance). What's more, the psychological turbulence projected by Lang would likely have strengthened the appeal of a figure like Hitler, who promised CHANGE to all of those who were disillusioned after WW1 (and then again during the Great Depression, though this was after the film).
@@gleggett3817 Correct (essentially selection bias), but importantly the film does not have a strong ideological position, which enhances the capacity to do this.
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
this is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
@@nicholasreid1836 it's Gnostic writing about merging man with mashine. Why they library of Alerxandra was burnt down.. What they trying to do today.. Chip man.. Now thank you for butting in I can give more expiation 🤔
You say the movie ends with "Reconciliation". Others would call it "class collaboration." And the images of workers aimlessly rotating the hands of some machine... just shows how in touch with working class reality Fritz and Thea actually were. Visually a stunning movie (11 out of 10), societal analysis = 1 out of 10. Reminds me of another similar visually stunning director (Kubrick), but a loser when it came to understanding human relations, and especially women.
I think you're mistaken my friend, I am pro-capitalism 🤣 I am simply commenting on what I believe to be the ideological impetus behind a 1920's film. I believe in freedom and meritocracy but I also believe in compassion and equality of opportunity (but not outcome).
I too felt like your references to capitalism were misplaced. The homogeny of the workers and lack of individuality among the workers while the elites all seem to share in the benefits equally speak more to a communist society rather then a capitalist one. I felt like it was an anti communist movie while I was watching it. I didn’t see run a way greed or a profit over people behavior that one would expect to see in a critic of capitalism. They don’t even show any type of money or currency or any real business going on. There’s just the workers and the elites. Of course being anti communist myself I could be just seeing it that way. But I never felt like they were saying anything about capitalism.
One thing that really stood out to me in this film was how boh Frederson and Rotwang use the AI to manipulate and control the working class. Frederson uses it as a mouthpiece to make the people believe what he wants them too. And Rotwang, as a kind of insane guy ostracized to the fringe of society uses the AI to prey on anger and rage to incite a false rebellion. Of course the need for rebellion is very real and necessary but the way he and the AI orchestrated it would've cost the workers their childrens lives. Their losses would've outweighed their gains, they'd have been more downtrodden and crushed than before and likely easier to control again. The fact that a film in 1927 predicted AI as a tool to manipulate and control the poor, working and uneducated in society is kind of mind boggling
With the 100th anniversary of the debut of METROPOLIS coming in 2027, I really hope that there is a re-release of this cinematic masterpiece into movie theatres so that cinephiles (like me!) can have the opportunity to see this film on the big screen (just imagine what it would look like on an I-MAX screen!!).
Great break down. Took me 64 years to finally watch this great film. My hope is that another collectors print shows up that can be better supply for those scenes barely saved, or the better and newer A.I. film restoration techniques are employed once more to bringing this iconic film to diamond clarity throughout.
Thank you so much, I hope so too!
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as the "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
@@nicholasreid1836 head and hand heart in between I think the message is clear.
I really enjoyed your explanation of the movie " Metropolis ". It brought light to the movie. Next time I see it, I will enjoy it even better. Thank you.
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as the "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
The version I saw had an ending with a handshake
Summed up the movie perfectly
Nothing to do with political theories
@@MarK-iw2xj Watch it more closely, Marco.
it told the truth of the cannibalism going on in the war and i the camps and was a warning from the past to the future of what evil men would do to an innocent girl and try and frame her as being the whore of Babylon by giving AI the hologram of her body and face .... Jesus is the mediator
The notion of mediation is associated with class collaboration, which the Nazis and fascists supported, believing the classes should be United on the basis or race or nationhood. The film definitely is anti-capitalist, and has criticism of inequality, however, a real Marxist creator who sought for a synthesis or solution to class struggle in the film would advocate full worker control, taking control of the machines as opposed to destroying them, as opposed to to the classes cooperating. I'm writing about for HSC, and with this fascistic message, I don't want it to sound like I'm supporting it.
I was wondering the same thing. It certainly didn't look much like a Marxist working class revolution.
I've only just watched Metropolis. I've watch it twice in one week. I love this film❤️👍
A better perspective to explore is the warped psyche of Fritz Lang over the transparent symbolism the viewer wants to apply. I got way more cinematically from The New Babylon 1929 (Soviet film with Russian title cards) than Metropolis. The Shostakovich score helped. The score to Metropolis ran out of steam into triteness after about 20 minutes.
thank you, this was a very detailed summary and actually helped quite a bit.
Awesome video. I have a collaborative film seminar for my University film course in an hour where we'll be discussing Metropolis. I was really struggling to come up with interesting ideas to bring with me, and this video has saved me. Love it. Earned a sub.
Dude you are a beast at breaking down this exceptional movie
Thank you so much :)
Thank you very much
We now can see Metropolis as a utopia, with the working class kept underground where we can neither see nor smell them. Of course the robot was designed to replace them, as they were just biological machines to begin with. Metropolis failed because it could not be true to the vision yet in the end, the workers return to their true nature, mindless creatures marching again up the steps of the Cathedral. The movie ends as it begins, with the workers as an anonymous mass, food for the machine god. What else could they have been good for?
Thanks for the insight Charles! I'm not sure I would agree that it ends exactly the same as it begun; there appears to be a utopian sensibility, or at least a small semblance of hope, that characterises the ending (particularly with the handshake between Grot and Fredersen).
is there any way you have this beautufull presentation in a blog or a web page written?
the curvature of the tunnels
indeed
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
What about the 8/7 emotions where feeder see the city of death
There is a lot of satanic symbols and a Christ like figure
Good pick up!
The Moloch scene depicts a monkish preacher in a pulpit who holds up a reformation-era German bible (Luther) pointing to the whore of Babylon (Revelation 17:9) followed by the wraiths of the seven mountains upon which she sits. Invokes the apocalyptic sense of Revelation that its audience would be familiar with.
You conveniently skipped over all religious/ Christian themes. Are you scared to talk about that or did you really not notice them? I think there an important part of the film Freder is clearly the Christ figure.
You raise a good point - this is certainly an important element of the film; something for me to address in a separate video! I am curious why you suggest fear would be the reason for its neglect in this particular video? I suppose some people may be afraid to speak on the value of religion given the increasingly secular society in which we appear to live (religious adherence is at times demonised, or at the very least, stigmatised) - but its value should not be understated, especially in times of chaos.
@@jeddle Because I have a brother who is a public school teacher. He told me that if he were to mention Jesus or bring up a bible story in his class (even to mention how it connects to something else, like say why there are 7 days in a week) he could lose his job. I confess that I haven't watched a lot of your videos but I do get a scholastic vibe from your channel. I though it might be contacted to a school or University. I was expecting this video would mention Christianity as a theme as I think it (along with the other themes you mentioned) is key to understanding the film. When you didn't mention it I thought there must have been a reason. I may have misjudged.
@@turtleisasturtledoes6707 Thanks for clarifying - I appreciate where you are coming from. But yes, absolutely no agenda or prejudice in our videos - just tough to cover everything in a single video (which we try to make concise). Will certainly look to address this aspect in the future.
Though Lang is an atheist, raised a Catholic, he can use biblical themes that would be readily identified and thus he can piggyback that innate understanding the audience has.
@@jeddle exactly my point Above in separate comment. "should not be understated", and yet you do just that, I'm sure, in your other vids too. Pls look up 'The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit' by Dr. E Michael Jones, also Fidelity Press (his own), bc it is banned on Amazon / YT now, merely bc he speaks the Truth about Usury etc., also see his 'Barren Metal'. 1000s of Films can come out of his 2 books there alone, and they must be done to wake u all up from ur slumber.
Thank you very much, I found the presentation to be helpful haha
Thank you!!
Hi, do u recommend a four paragraph structure for standard English, Asian poetry.
THREE or FOUR both work. If you are are focussing on three poems, three paragraphs makes sense! Four may be too long depending on how quickly you write.
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
Great video and class. Since it is well known that Hitler enjoyed movies, in what way do you think this movie affected his mindset.
Hitler arguably enjoyed the ideological ambivalence of this film (i.e. it was not adverse to his own political stance). What's more, the psychological turbulence projected by Lang would likely have strengthened the appeal of a figure like Hitler, who promised CHANGE to all of those who were disillusioned after WW1 (and then again during the Great Depression, though this was after the film).
Anyone with that mindset would take what he wanted from the film and ignore the themes and messages that conflicted with his already formed opinions.
@@gleggett3817 Correct (essentially selection bias), but importantly the film does not have a strong ideological position, which enhances the capacity to do this.
This is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
Look up Basque mountain
this is not a very well-researched "explanation" of the film. It is definitely and absolutely NOT a Marxist film. Please remember it's based on a novel by Thea von Harbou (Fritz Lang's wife at the time) who also wrote the screenplay. Though she denied it after WW2, she joined the Nazi Party as soon as Hitler was in power and wrote and directed a couple of (not very good) films under Nazi direction. Also note that Hitler not only admired "Metropolis", but he saw himself as thr "heart" joining the "head' and the "hand". I mean, who needs a proletarian revolution when nice wealthy people like Federson's son promise that they will be nice to the workers? The great glory of "Metropolis" is its mise-en-scene, not its ideas, and certainly not its analysis of society.
@@nicholasreid1836 look up Basque mountain Mari symbol I won't explain theifs...who stolen from her
@@nicholasreid1836 this wasn't for Hitler this was made for Rothchilds.. Who hated Hitler
@@nicholasreid1836 it's Gnostic writing about merging man with mashine. Why they library of Alerxandra was burnt down.. What they trying to do today.. Chip man.. Now thank you for butting in I can give more expiation 🤔
@@fibromyalgia09 What's a mashine? Does it have anything to do with a machine?
2021:Twirking.
You say the movie ends with "Reconciliation". Others would call it "class collaboration." And the images of workers aimlessly rotating the hands of some machine... just shows how in touch with working class reality Fritz and Thea actually were. Visually a stunning movie (11 out of 10), societal analysis = 1 out of 10. Reminds me of another similar visually stunning director (Kubrick), but a loser when it came to understanding human relations, and especially women.
You use this movie to push your negative narrative against capitalism. So if you're against capitalism what or you for communism & socialism? 🤔😀
I think you're mistaken my friend, I am pro-capitalism 🤣 I am simply commenting on what I believe to be the ideological impetus behind a 1920's film. I believe in freedom and meritocracy but I also believe in compassion and equality of opportunity (but not outcome).
I too felt like your references to capitalism were misplaced. The homogeny of the workers and lack of individuality among the workers while the elites all seem to share in the benefits equally speak more to a communist society rather then a capitalist one. I felt like it was an anti communist movie while I was watching it. I didn’t see run a way greed or a profit over people behavior that one would expect to see in a critic of capitalism. They don’t even show any type of money or currency or any real business going on. There’s just the workers and the elites. Of course being anti communist myself I could be just seeing it that way. But I never felt like they were saying anything about capitalism.
Metropolis is the first black & white movie in the world, about the nwo plans. its the first Matrix Movie. and a jewish production