Skip to main content

Metropolis

Director: Fritz Lang
Year: 1927
Run-time: 2 hours 28 min
Source: Kanopy

"I have recently seen the silliest film. I do not believe it would be possible to make one sillier," begins H.G. Wells' review of Metropolis.  He found it to be extremely unrealistic, and hopelessly sentimental.  In modern terms, Wells wanted hard sci-fi, and Lang's film is as soft as it comes.  One of Wells' main points is based on economics.  In a truly mechanized society, Wells claims, there would be no lower-class workers, since the machines would equalize the distribution of wealth.

Our future doesn't look on the surface like Lang's steampunk nightmare, but here he gets it right.  When machines can replace men, men need to act more like machines to get by.  Wells is right, though: Metropolis isn't hard sci-fi.  The strength of this movie is that it cares more about people.  We remember it for its stylized art style, and the incredible performance of Brigitte Helm as the robot, but in watching it a second time, I was much more moved by the plot, and how its really all about empathy.

Metropolis brings together so many trends in earlier films.  It takes the fantastical sense of scale from the "city symphonies" like Manhatta.  It takes the heightened emotions and Gothic sensibilities of its German Romanticist forebears like Nosferatu.  It takes the rapid pacing and communalism of the Soviet montage movement.  1927 may be the best year for film, primarily because we see so many ideas merging in films like Napoleon, this film, and the next on our list.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bringing Up Baby

Director: Howard Hawks Year: 1938 Run-time: 1 hr 42 min - Bringing Up Baby  is in my mind the epitome of the screwball comedy, and probably its finest example.  Hepburn and Grant are just so perfect in their roles, and the level of constant absurdity gets to the point where it overrides any cultural datedness and just becomes fun.  (The main exception is the Irish stereotype, but given that he is justified in how he behaves, it's excusable.)  I was a bit shocked to discover that this was not a commercial success, and indeed almost ruined Hepburn's career (she had the most to lose, given how novel her quirky performance is). - Looking back at the three screwballs so far on this list, it never occurred to me before how the genre seems to rely on a rich and "privileged" female lead to be the one to challenge and emasculate the male lead.  Perhaps that was the acceptable way to present it to a depression-era audience?
Post a Comment
Read more

Partie de campagne (A Day In the Country)

Director: Jean Renoir Year: 1936 Run-time: 40 min - You can tell that French film is thriving in 1936 by the fact that a film by Renoir is the worst of the last three on the list.  (Renoir has two 1936 films on the list - and other classics from this year that didn't make the cut.)  That's only really due to its brevity, and the fact that it wasn't properly finished due to extenuating circumstances.  What exists is still pretty excellent - putting the elegant but slight story aside, it's Renoir's ode to the natural world, which never quite came through before due to the bluntness of 1930's cinematography.  In fact, it's the only Renoir film I've seen in which he channels something of his father's eye for natural beauty (a fact he alludes to himself in a later commentary he gave on the film).
Post a Comment
Read more

The Cat Concerto

Directors: William Hanna and Joseph Barbera Year: 1947 I'm sure it's no coincidence that music plays such a strong role in many of the animated films featured on the list. By this point, there's nothing especially novel about this Tom and Jerry  short by another great animation studio led by Hanna and Barbera, except that the execution is so spot-on. This is eight minutes of pure delight. 
Post a Comment
Read more