3 ms·

I disliked Metropolis quite a lot. Maybe it was influential and was probably a gamechanger at a time. But is it good in any way from today's point of view? I'm

I disliked Metropolis quite a lot. Maybe it was influential and was probably a gamechanger at a time. But is it good in any way from today's point of view? I'm not talking about effects or scenography which could not technically be better at that era. I'm talking about acting and script which look abysmal to me. I would probably not have this kind of opinion but it's often on some kind of top list and my expectations were high. Maybe I'm missing something? Or is it just touted for historical significance? It's not that I have a problem with old movies. Casablanca came out only 15 years after Metropolis and is perfect in every way I care about.

wazoox 4y ago
Acting in silent movies is entirely different from what came later. That's why most silent stars didn't make it into the "talkie" era. Just like aliens in 60s movies speak English and are obviously people in disguise, you just have to adhere to the conventions of the time. Similarly, the ways to make the script go forward are usually quite different from what came later, because of the constant interruption required by text inserts. Last, the musical score is important. A bad one can make of break a silent film (versions from archive.org and similar sites often have random music instead of a true score). So you may need to learn the way of the silent movies before really appreciating them (out of slapstick comedy such as Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton).
yamtaddle 4y ago
Silent-era sensibilities are very different from even WWII-era talkies. The field developed whole bunch, very fast. A lot of those films are difficult to appreciate without active effort to acclimatize oneself to them, much the same way lots of people bounce off classical music or jazz (or hip-hop, or heavy metal, or most musical genres, really) until they've had a bit more exposure and learned how to enjoy them. Plus, a lot of them were leaning really hard into one movement or another, and Metropolis is one of those (many) cases, so what it's aiming to do well isn't necessarily the same set of things most modern films would aim to do well (and indeed, off the beaten path you can find plenty of modern films that similarly target some particular effect or art movement, which can also take a bit of adjustment to one's expectations to enjoy) Acting in particular has gone through some serious changes as fashions come and go, and most any style one encounters aside from what's now in-vogue tends to come off as corny. Even Casablanca, which is ahead of its time in many ways (for an American movie, anyway—the US lagged in some film technique developments at the time, compared with other markets) features acting that's less-naturalistic than what's popular now. Also, changes in editing have really made a difference in how performances come across, which is part of why watching a scene being filmed from a behind-the-scenes camera can make the acting seem off or bad—because it's not being filtered through modern shot-framing and editing. IMO the comedies suffer the least and remain fairly accessible (no matter when you were born, if you can't laugh at Chaplin and Keaton, there's something wrong with you) but, for most people, approaching the rest of the silent era is more a project than something you can just dip into here and there and expect to have a good time. The field was immature, the whole "silent" part of it takes some getting used to, and there was a whole lot of art-movement-influenced experimentation going on. There is, however, a lot of variety in styles in the silent film era, especially in foreign film. If you don't like 20s German expressionist films, try films of the 30s (IMO the silent era got a lot better toward the end), try American films, try French, try Spanish, Russian, stuff like that. Weird absurdist Spanish films that evoke the atmosphere of Monty Python, shocking short films, heart-rending dramas, cheap action schlock, about-the-town documentary or semi-fictional films, heavy-handed allegory—lots of stuff to explore. Plus the comedies, of which many are excellent and most are fairly accessible to a modern audience. [EDIT] If you want something a bit easier to chew on, from the same director as Metropolis, M, which I mentioned in my first post, is much closer to a modern film, in terms of its storytelling and its plot structure.
nix0n 4y ago
The thing that you're missing is the reappearance in other places of Metropolis's visual style. It's probably easier to see if you're a fan of Art Deco. It might also be easier to see if you watch Tron, which also was influential via visual style (in a different direction and lesser degree than Metropolis).
wodenokoto 4y ago
A lot of people feel the same way about Casablanca. My advice is: you don’t have to like it. If you are lucky you’ll stumble across an article or YouTube video that goes into details about how metropolis inspired movies _you_ love and on the back of that you can rewatch it as a sort of “behind the scenes” experience.
- Forgeties79 4y ago
  Really like this idea of considering it BTS. Going to file that one away for future use. Appreciate it!

wazoox 4y ago

Acting in silent movies is entirely different from what came later. That's why most silent stars didn't make it into the "talkie" era. Just like aliens in 60s movies speak English and are obviously people in disguise, you just have to adhere to the conventions of the time. Similarly, the ways to make the script go forward are usually quite different from what came later, because of the constant interruption required by text inserts. Last, the musical score is important. A bad one can make of break a silent film (versions from archive.org and similar sites often have random music instead of a true score). So you may need to learn the way of the silent movies before really appreciating them (out of slapstick comedy such as Harold Lloyd and Buster Keaton).

yamtaddle 4y ago

Silent-era sensibilities are very different from even WWII-era talkies. The field developed whole bunch, very fast. A lot of those films are difficult to appreciate without active effort to acclimatize oneself to them, much the same way lots of people bounce off classical music or jazz (or hip-hop, or heavy metal, or most musical genres, really) until they've had a bit more exposure and learned how to enjoy them. Plus, a lot of them were leaning really hard into one movement or another, and Metropolis is one of those (many) cases, so what it's aiming to do well isn't necessarily the same set of things most modern films would aim to do well (and indeed, off the beaten path you can find plenty of modern films that similarly target some particular effect or art movement, which can also take a bit of adjustment to one's expectations to enjoy) Acting in particular has gone through some serious changes as fashions come and go, and most any style one encounters aside from what's now in-vogue tends to come off as corny. Even Casablanca, which is ahead of its time in many ways (for an American movie, anyway—the US lagged in some film technique developments at the time, compared with other markets) features acting that's less-naturalistic than what's popular now. Also, changes in editing have really made a difference in how performances come across, which is part of why watching a scene being filmed from a behind-the-scenes camera can make the acting seem off or bad—because it's not being filtered through modern shot-framing and editing. IMO the comedies suffer the least and remain fairly accessible (no matter when you were born, if you can't laugh at Chaplin and Keaton, there's something wrong with you) but, for most people, approaching the rest of the silent era is more a project than something you can just dip into here and there and expect to have a good time. The field was immature, the whole "silent" part of it takes some getting used to, and there was a whole lot of art-movement-influenced experimentation going on. There is, however, a lot of variety in styles in the silent film era, especially in foreign film. If you don't like 20s German expressionist films, try films of the 30s (IMO the silent era got a lot better toward the end), try American films, try French, try Spanish, Russian, stuff like that. Weird absurdist Spanish films that evoke the atmosphere of Monty Python, shocking short films, heart-rending dramas, cheap action schlock, about-the-town documentary or semi-fictional films, heavy-handed allegory—lots of stuff to explore. Plus the comedies, of which many are excellent and most are fairly accessible to a modern audience. [EDIT] If you want something a bit easier to chew on, from the same director as Metropolis, M, which I mentioned in my first post, is much closer to a modern film, in terms of its storytelling and its plot structure.

nix0n 4y ago

The thing that you're missing is the reappearance in other places of Metropolis's visual style. It's probably easier to see if you're a fan of Art Deco. It might also be easier to see if you watch Tron, which also was influential via visual style (in a different direction and lesser degree than Metropolis).

wodenokoto 4y ago

A lot of people feel the same way about Casablanca. My advice is: you don’t have to like it. If you are lucky you’ll stumble across an article or YouTube video that goes into details about how metropolis inspired movies _you_ love and on the back of that you can rewatch it as a sort of “behind the scenes” experience.

Forgeties79 4y ago
Really like this idea of considering it BTS. Going to file that one away for future use. Appreciate it!