5 ms·

So hear me out. Although Metropolis is a milestone in technical cinematic terms, the actual story is silly, the moral at the end is patronising, and the sci-fi

So hear me out. Although Metropolis is a milestone in technical cinematic terms, the actual story is silly, the moral at the end is patronising, and the sci-fi content is weak, even for its time. So the modern equivalent would be something with a huge budget, flashy production and amazing special effects but with a rubbish story. Something like Starship Troopers maybe (although thats actually quite good as a satire). Or maybe 'Cowboys and Aliens'. When you watch it and it seems a bit hokey, don't make excuses for it. It most probably seemed equally hokey to people at the time. For example here's a contemporary review by H. G. Wells: The film’s air of having something grave and wonderful to say is transparent pretence. It has nothing to do with any social or moral issue before the world or with any that can ever conceivably arise. It is bunkum and poor and thin even as bunkum. I am astonished at the toleration shown it by quite a number of film critics on both sides of the Atlantic. https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2018/07/h-g-wells-reviews-movie-metropolis/ https://www.wired.com/beyond-the-beyond/2018/07/h-g-wells-re...

lqet 8y ago
I agree. While I think M is a masterpiece in almost every aspect, I tried watching Metropolis several times and always found it to be mediocre at best. I cannot understand the hype around this movie. Besides H.G. Wells, contemporary German critics were also spot on: > Thea von Harbou erfindet eine unmögliche Personenhandlung, die in den Motiven überstopft wird. […] Immer wird mit Gefühlsphrasen gearbeitet. Schrecklich. Ein sachliches Thema grausam verkitscht. Effekte, nicht weil Weltanschauungen zu Explosionen drängen, sondern weil der Film seine Tricks will. Der Schluß, die tränenreiche Versöhnung von Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer – entsetzlich.“ Slightly improved Google translation: >Thea von Harbou (she was the screenwriter) invents an impossible plot which is overstuffed with motifs. [...] She is only working with emotional clichées. Dreadful. A serious subject cruelly made into kitsch. Effects not because the depicted world demands it, but because the film wants its tricks. The end - the tearful reconciliation of employer and employee - awful." – Berliner Börsen-Courier, 11. Januar 1927 > Nimm zehn Tonnen Grausen, gieße ein Zehntel Sentimentalität darüber, koche es mit sozialem Empfinden auf und würze es mit Mystik nach Bedarf, verrühre das Ganze mit Mark (sieben Millionen) und du erhältst einen prima Kolossalfilm. > Take ten tons of horror, pour a tenth of sentimentality over it, cook it with social feeling and season it with mysticism as needed, mix with Mark (seven million of it) (Mark the currency, but it may also be understood as bone marrow ("Knochenmark") or tomato puree ("Tomatenmark") in the context of cooking, which is the joke here) and you get a great colossal movie. – Simplicissimus Nr. 44/1927
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  It's basically a turd as a story; a lame piece of socialist moralizing with lots of cheap stereotypes. I assume it got made at all because the author was married to Fritz Lang, though she certainly wrote better screenplays before and after this one. It was the design elements of the movie and "special effects" which made it worth remembering.
  - codeulike 8y ago
    Its not even socialist. At the end, employer and employee are united by Love. I have no idea where to pin that on the political spectrum.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Social democracy -- that is, almost every government in the west today.
  - nmg 8y ago
    Agreed. I've only seen it once but I recall feeling "what's the big deal" at the end. However the interview made me re-think this a bit. That the interviewer mistook the number of extras by a large margin speaks to the cinematic "tricks" (as cited pejoratively in parent post) being successful even thirty years later. I imagine this was an eye-opening moment for moviegoers the same way Citizen Kane was - like nothing seen before, so deeply impactful.
johnchristopher 8y ago
> So the modern equivalent would be something with a huge budget, flashy production and amazing special effects but with a rubbish story. Something like Starship Troopers maybe (although thats actually quite good as a satire). Or maybe 'Cowboys and Aliens'. So... Avatar ?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Fins 8y ago
  Just as I was going to say that... Although I think that plot aside, Metropolis has far more artistic merit than Avatar (or anything Cameron ever made, makes, or will make).
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
    I dunno, The Terminator was pretty good.
    - Fins 8y ago
      On artistic merit? I don't think so. As brainless entertainment, as long as you don't mind plot holes you could drive a whole T-1000 factory through, it was pretty good (because Ah-nuld), but as something else... I don't think so, just a typical Cameron
ravenstine 8y ago
As someone who is a fan of the movie(I ordered the Blu-ray as soon as I learned they were releasing the recovered footage), it's a lousy story. I like it because of the aesthetics.
- codeulike 8y ago
  The sort of thing that we now call 'production design'?
graeme 8y ago
Fritz lang said as much himself. See theoriginal reception section: "The main thesis was Mrs. Von Harbou's, but I am at least 50 percent responsible because I did it. I was not so politically minded in those days as I am now. You cannot make a social-conscious picture in which you say that the intermediary between the hand and the brain is the heart. I mean, that's a fairy tale—definitely. But I was very interested in machines. Anyway, I didn't like the picture—thought it was silly and stupid—then, when I saw the astronauts: what else are they but part of a machine? It's very hard to talk about pictures—should I say now that I like Metropolis because something I have seen in my imagination comes true, when I detested it after it was finished?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film)
coldtea 8y ago
>So hear me out. Although Metropolis is a milestone in technical cinematic terms, the actual story is silly, the moral at the end is patronising, and the sci-fi content is weak, even for its time. So the modern equivalent would be something with a huge budget, flashy production and amazing special effects but with a rubbish story. So like 99% of the Marvel and DC movies? (Startship Troppers have no "rubbish story". It's based on a classic book, and the additional humor in the movie elevates it even more). >When you watch it and it seems a bit hokey, don't make excuses for it. It most probably seemed equally hokey to people at the time. On the other hand Roger Ebert and many modern critics beg to differ.

lqet 8y ago

I agree. While I think M is a masterpiece in almost every aspect, I tried watching Metropolis several times and always found it to be mediocre at best. I cannot understand the hype around this movie. Besides H.G. Wells, contemporary German critics were also spot on: > Thea von Harbou erfindet eine unmögliche Personenhandlung, die in den Motiven überstopft wird. […] Immer wird mit Gefühlsphrasen gearbeitet. Schrecklich. Ein sachliches Thema grausam verkitscht. Effekte, nicht weil Weltanschauungen zu Explosionen drängen, sondern weil der Film seine Tricks will. Der Schluß, die tränenreiche Versöhnung von Arbeitgeber und Arbeitnehmer – entsetzlich.“ Slightly improved Google translation: >Thea von Harbou (she was the screenwriter) invents an impossible plot which is overstuffed with motifs. [...] She is only working with emotional clichées. Dreadful. A serious subject cruelly made into kitsch. Effects not because the depicted world demands it, but because the film wants its tricks. The end - the tearful reconciliation of employer and employee - awful." – Berliner Börsen-Courier, 11. Januar 1927 > Nimm zehn Tonnen Grausen, gieße ein Zehntel Sentimentalität darüber, koche es mit sozialem Empfinden auf und würze es mit Mystik nach Bedarf, verrühre das Ganze mit Mark (sieben Millionen) und du erhältst einen prima Kolossalfilm. > Take ten tons of horror, pour a tenth of sentimentality over it, cook it with social feeling and season it with mysticism as needed, mix with Mark (seven million of it) (Mark the currency, but it may also be understood as bone marrow ("Knochenmark") or tomato puree ("Tomatenmark") in the context of cooking, which is the joke here) and you get a great colossal movie. – Simplicissimus Nr. 44/1927

scottlocklin 8y ago
It's basically a turd as a story; a lame piece of socialist moralizing with lots of cheap stereotypes. I assume it got made at all because the author was married to Fritz Lang, though she certainly wrote better screenplays before and after this one. It was the design elements of the movie and "special effects" which made it worth remembering.
- codeulike 8y ago
  Its not even socialist. At the end, employer and employee are united by Love. I have no idea where to pin that on the political spectrum.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Social democracy -- that is, almost every government in the west today.
- nmg 8y ago
  Agreed. I've only seen it once but I recall feeling "what's the big deal" at the end. However the interview made me re-think this a bit. That the interviewer mistook the number of extras by a large margin speaks to the cinematic "tricks" (as cited pejoratively in parent post) being successful even thirty years later. I imagine this was an eye-opening moment for moviegoers the same way Citizen Kane was - like nothing seen before, so deeply impactful.

johnchristopher 8y ago

> So the modern equivalent would be something with a huge budget, flashy production and amazing special effects but with a rubbish story. Something like Starship Troopers maybe (although thats actually quite good as a satire). Or maybe 'Cowboys and Aliens'. So... Avatar ?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Fins 8y ago
Just as I was going to say that... Although I think that plot aside, Metropolis has far more artistic merit than Avatar (or anything Cameron ever made, makes, or will make).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- amanaplanacanal 8y ago
  I dunno, The Terminator was pretty good.
  - Fins 8y ago
    On artistic merit? I don't think so. As brainless entertainment, as long as you don't mind plot holes you could drive a whole T-1000 factory through, it was pretty good (because Ah-nuld), but as something else... I don't think so, just a typical Cameron

ravenstine 8y ago

As someone who is a fan of the movie(I ordered the Blu-ray as soon as I learned they were releasing the recovered footage), it's a lousy story. I like it because of the aesthetics.

codeulike 8y ago
The sort of thing that we now call 'production design'?

graeme 8y ago

Fritz lang said as much himself. See theoriginal reception section: "The main thesis was Mrs. Von Harbou's, but I am at least 50 percent responsible because I did it. I was not so politically minded in those days as I am now. You cannot make a social-conscious picture in which you say that the intermediary between the hand and the brain is the heart. I mean, that's a fairy tale—definitely. But I was very interested in machines. Anyway, I didn't like the picture—thought it was silly and stupid—then, when I saw the astronauts: what else are they but part of a machine? It's very hard to talk about pictures—should I say now that I like Metropolis because something I have seen in my imagination comes true, when I detested it after it was finished?" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolis_(1927_film)

coldtea 8y ago

>So hear me out. Although Metropolis is a milestone in technical cinematic terms, the actual story is silly, the moral at the end is patronising, and the sci-fi content is weak, even for its time. So the modern equivalent would be something with a huge budget, flashy production and amazing special effects but with a rubbish story. So like 99% of the Marvel and DC movies? (Startship Troppers have no "rubbish story". It's based on a classic book, and the additional humor in the movie elevates it even more). >When you watch it and it seems a bit hokey, don't make excuses for it. It most probably seemed equally hokey to people at the time. On the other hand Roger Ebert and many modern critics beg to differ.