Remakes/Reboots/Sequels That Need to Happen: Metropolis
6 Comments
-
Steven Lyle Jordan says:
Couldn’t agree more on these points. Metropolis has also been one of my favorite movies since I first saw a (horribly-butchered) version in the 1970s, and discovered the wealth of additional material found in Thea Von Harbou’s original novel. Though I once created an illustrated version of Metropolis, with an idea to modernizing the look, I’ve never been able to create an updated story for Metropolis; there’s a lot to unpack in there, and it would be too easy to emphasize certain elements and completely lose track of others. But I think it’s a project worth pursuing.
-
reagan@yourfilmprofessor.com says:
Thanks Steven for your thoughtful sentiments! Like you, my first encounter with Metropolis was one of those “horribly-butchered” versions, so when I saw the restored version, I was just stunned by what I was watching, a pristine print that did justice to Lang’s incredible vision and artistry. I commend you for your attempt to create an “illustrated version of Metropolis, with an idea to modernize the look.” As you astutely say, it is a daunting project the film covers SO much ground (including in terms of its sublime compositions), my blog post only scratching the surface of its many complexities. Indeed, if it weren’t for the many factors I mention in my post (the sheer oldness of the film, the weaknesses), I wouldn’t promote a remake, since I suspect it may be almost impossible to recreate a film that almost magically came together in the way it did. (And, boy, do I not have faith in Hollywood to do justice to this vision!) Still, there are some visionary filmmakers out there that I DO have faith in (for one, Bong Joon-ho!), that could capture the sublimity of the original, so one can hope that lightning can indeed strike twice.
-
-
Kim Nelson says:
Metropolis is an amazing movie, especialliy in its newly restored format, and I could not agree more that a well done remake would be a fantastic project to be pursued. I believe it would be difficult to find an Actress as inspiring as Bridget Helm and an Actor like Gustav Frohlich. I see the film as an amazing piece of retro-futurism.
But to use the movie to promote some socialist agenda, would be a major mistake and have absolutely nothing to do with the original intent. Fritz Lang’s wife, Thea Von Harbou, who wrote the screen play, was anything but a socialist, Later she be came an admirer of Adolf Hitler, and Goebels himself is said to have admired the film for its promotion of Nazi values. This is also something which is not intended. There are many subplots in this movie which is what makes it so interesting: the relationship between father and son, between Freder and Maria, between Jon and Rotwang, and, of course the workers struggle in an inequal society. There is also a warning here that destroying society to promote change, also has its consequences. In its finest form, film is both art and entertainment. To use a film as propaganda to promote some socialist or gay rights agenda, would in ways, cheapen its value. Good film is timeless, but social causes seldom are.-
First of all, thanks so much for the comment! I think we can definitely agree on one thing, “Metropolis is an amazing movie… that a well done remake would be a fantastic project to be pursued.” In terms of your secondary point, I’m not sure I can add much to what I’ve already written on the film, but I’ll try to further explicate my position. I don’t know if it means much that “Goebels himself is said to have admired the film for its promotion of Nazi values” or that Thea Von Harbou wrote the script of the film. In terms of the former, there are elements in the film that a fascist ideology might like, Freder very much being a god-like autocrat who rules with an iron fist. Indeed, in Siegfried Kracauer’s celebrated work From Hitler to Caligari, he suggests that German Expressionism and especially the German Expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari predicted the rise of Hitler and Nazism, the premise being that Caligari and other German Expressionist films reflected the autocratic sensibility in the German people, and I certainly think this to a certain degree applies to Metropolis. And I don’t doubt that Von Harbou got some of her anti-Semitic (and authoritarian) beliefs in the film; for one thing, some see Rotwang, the villain, as a Jew. But I would strongly argue that ultimately the film is Lang’s film and I think that comes through in the more progressive elements in the film.
In terms of promoting a so-called “socialist agenda” or the curious idea that “social causes seldom are” “timeless,” I would strongly argue, and so have many, many other scholars that whatever Metropolis was intended to be, it is what it is, and that is at least in part a socialist film. Any film that pushes class consciousness and diagrams in the most stark terms what capitalism does to workers, can only be called a socialist film. More pointedly, as I say in my piece, I can’t think of any film that has so glaringly made it clear what capitalism is, a predatory, mercenary, put profit and power before people, survival of the fittest economic system/ideology, turning human beings into the machines they run, turning them into (see them as) disposable bodies. I’ve studied and taught capitalism for over 20 years and I can tell you that no other film captures the inhumane treatment of the working class as well as Metropolis. Indeed, in this country and the world, Lang’s film perfectly captures the dehumanization of the working class in this country and certainly the world. In this context, I would strongly argue that the only difference I’m proposing for a remake and the original is to see the original’s vision of a socialist movement to the end, e.g., instead of keeping the working class under the yoke of an authoritarian capitalist (Freder), continuing to make them “hands” or “tools” of the capitalist (authoritarian) state, instead of that, to actually make them equal and give them their agentic humanity back. And let me just also stress, socialism is not communism, it still has certain aspects of capitalism (private property, profit margins, etc.) but, among other things, it ends a hierarchy of class, ends the privilege and power – and the extreme exploitation that comes with that – of an upper class and gives true equality to the working/lower class. I can’t imagine who would object to that change in our way of being!
One final point: I would highly dispute this contention: “Good film is timeless, but social causes seldom are.” I must admit that got a jaw drop from me! I can’t imagine anyone saying that our most important historical “social causes” – civil and human rights for African Americans, equal rights for women, sovereign rights for indigenous peoples, working class rights, child labor protections, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism rights for “third world” Others, innate human rights protections and freedoms, environmental protections, etc., etc. — are not “timeless” and vital for our collective need to progress humanity to a better, more humane place. And, indeed, I would also strongly argue that some of our most important films are social issue films, too many to name here but among these important films I would include, yes, Metropolis but also films on racism/white supremacy (Roots, 12 Years a Slave, To Kill a Mockingbird, In the Heat of the Night, etc.); films on the struggles of the working class (The Grapes of Wrath, Norma Rae, On the Waterfront, Modern Times, etc.); films on women’s rights (The Piano, Thelma & Louise, Whale Rider, etc.), anti-consumerist/greed/anti-capitalist/anti-poverty films (It’s a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Parasite, Bicycle Thieves, etc.); anti-war (Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, etc.); and, well, you get the idea; and this literally is the tip of the iceberg for “social issue” films!
-
-
Dave says:
I have adored this film since I was a teenager in the 1980’s even before I understood politics. The artistry for its time is amazing and I can see echoes of its visual style in countless science fiction movies since. I have a different take than you, but you make many excellent points and your analysis is superb. I would only say that to frame it as capitalism vs socialism is slightly reductive. Certainly in the 1920’s it was extremely prescient, as socialist movements were seen as a reasonable alternative to extraordinarily classist institutional degradation of workers, especially in Europe and American cities. Neither Lang nor Von Harbou could have known or foreseen the way socialism almost always degenerates into communism and left-wing authoritarianism. The great outrages of Soviet communism and Chinese Communism and the horrific conditions in Communist Cuba, as well as North Korea and north Vietnam have proven that however well-intentioned a movement might be, ultimately the people running the system, be they capitalist or any other system, become corrupt over time and drift from the ideals they began with. They become entrenched and used to the power, they enjoy having whatever they want and the caprice to have dissenters destroyed on a whim. Work will always need to be done by someone, and decisions will always need to be made by someone. The key is getting the work done not only efficiently but with dignity. The working class must have an equal voice, and it must be listened to by whoever is in charge. In the United States, until recently, there was a middle class that enjoyed a better standard of living while still doing the work. The extreme lower classes were, as you said, racial minorities and generationally impoverished and immigrants. The destruction of the middle class and the reducto ad absurdio into rich and poor that is happening today with the tech giants controlling speech and access, funding research into deadlier viruses and dehumanizing people by forcing them to wear masks in public and to be injected with drugs against their will sounds a lot more like the Metropolis workers than American capitalism. The introduction of AI to take jobs, to distract the masses from their lot in life, to simplify menial and repetitive tasks is Maria/Futura manifested. Ultimately Joh Fredersen and Rotwang sought to replace human workers entirely with robots that had no need of food or rest or dignity. The robot Maria was just a prototype. What would the masters of Metropolis have done with the labour class if they had been successful in automating everything? Killed them? Let them starve without jobs? The mediator of hands and head being the heart meant to me that because a thing can be done, it necessarily should be done. Sure, you can treat your workers badly, or replace them with machines, and that is true of capitalism or socialism. The difference is, or has been until recently, that you allow people a choice of how to live their non-work lives. Reasonable hours, an affordable home, enough to keep fed, and some time for personal reflection, prayer, family time, recreation. To my knowledge, none of those “luxuries” are offered to anyone in communist/socialist countries. In capitalism, there is at least the chance to improve one’s place in life and society, through hard work and ability. What I really see as evil is corporatism, which is truly dehumanizing, and a perversion of true capitalism in much the same way as communism is a perversion of socialist ideas. When that much money and power is concentrated in the hands of any one small group of people, whatever their political leaning, the remainder of the people have no chance. Joh Fredersen’s problem wasn’t that he was a capitalist, it was that he was disconnected from the people that made his world possible. Look at the style in which Joseph Stalin lived while his people stood in bread lines, and look what eventually happened to Nikolai Ceaucescu when the people had endured all they could. People in power are still people in the end, and subject to greed no matter their avowed conviction to equality of the classes.
-
You make some thoughtful and thought provoking observations and insights here. I’ll take them each in turn:
“I have adored this film since I was a teenager in the 1980’s even before I understood politics. The artistry for its time is amazing and I can see echoes of its visual style in countless science fiction movies since. I have a different take than you, but you make many excellent points and your analysis is superb.”
First of all, thanks so much for your generous sentiment. And, yeah, as I say in my post, I think Metropolis is one of the most influential science fiction films of all time. And, as you articulate so well, the “artistry” of the film is truly eye popping.
“I would only say that to frame it as capitalism vs socialism is slightly reductive. Certainly in the 1920’s it was extremely prescient, as socialist movements were seen as a reasonable alternative to extraordinarily classist institutional degradation of workers, especially in Europe and American cities.”
Hmm…I don’t think I ever mention “socialism” in my post. And I don’t know if I would call it “prescient” since the 1917 Russian Revolution had already predicated this possibility. As far as I know, Lang never explicitly mentioned the 1917 Russian Revolution, but I can’t imagine that he wasn’t aware of it. But, yes, the 1917 Russian Revolution triggered a widespread socialist movement that created a real fear of its spread, especially in America.
“Neither Lang nor Von Harbou could have known or foreseen the way socialism almost always degenerates into communism and left-wing authoritarianism. The great outrages of Soviet communism and Chinese Communism and the horrific conditions in Communist Cuba, as well as North Korea and north Vietnam have proven that however well-intentioned a movement might be, ultimately the people running the system, be they capitalist or any other system, become corrupt over time and drift from the ideals they began with. They become entrenched and used to the power, they enjoy having whatever they want and the caprice to have dissenters destroyed on a whim.”
Hmm…yes, I am mostly with you on your points here though I would complicate some of this, especially the “degenerates into communism and left-wing authoritarianism” part (see below for more).
“Work will always need to be done by someone, and decisions will always need to be made by someone. The key is getting the work done not only efficiently but with dignity. The working class must have an equal voice, and it must be listened to by whoever is in charge.”
Very well put!
“In the United States, until recently, there was a middle class that enjoyed a better standard of living while still doing the work. The extreme lower classes were, as you said, racial minorities and generationally impoverished and immigrants. The destruction of the middle class and the reducto ad absurdio into rich and poor that is happening today with the tech giants controlling speech and access, funding research into deadlier viruses and dehumanizing people by forcing them to wear masks in public and to be injected with drugs against their will sounds a lot more like the Metropolis workers than American capitalism.”
You’ve kind of lost me here! In terms of your first point, yes, America developed a “middle class that enjoyed a better standard of living while still doing the work,” but that doesn’t tell the whole story. For one thing, even at the height of this creation of a flourishing “middle class,” many of them were blue collar workers doing mind numbing, body breaking, soul sucking work. Moreover, the “middle class” only emerged in post-WWII/1950s when America had what was in effect democratic socialism, taxing the wealthy and big business at a very high tax rate (around 70% and then shooting up to 90%), along with a vibrant labor movement and industrial expansion. But Metropolis reflected both a different time for workers (the 20s were a horrible time for the working class) and reflected a general norm for the working class, the 1950s being more an exception than the norm, which, again, we can see both in this country and especially around the world. Indeed, if Metropolis is prescient for anything, it is in predicting how horrible conditions would become for the working class in modern time, which, again, we especially see with sweatshops in the Global South but can also see in many industries in America, especially for our “immigrant” population, e.g., the meatpacking industry, the agricultural industry, the cleaning (maid/janitorial) industry, etc.
As for the rest, a lot of this sounds like conspiracy thinking, not really pertinent to the film or my points about the film. In terms of your last conclusion, that’s where I am a bit perplexed since this extreme disparity between rich and poor and the degraded conditions of the working class sound exactly like American capitalism. Of course, the film was not directing its focus on American capitalism but reflected the dismal conditions of the working class in Germany at the time, not to mention, again, how it perfectly reflects the conditions of the working class around the work, especially in the sweatshop laden Global South.
“The introduction of AI to take jobs, to distract the masses from their lot in life, to simplify menial and repetitive tasks is Maria/Futura manifested. Ultimately Joh Fredersen and Rotwang sought to replace human workers entirely with robots that had no need of food or rest or dignity. The robot Maria was just a prototype. What would the masters of Metropolis have done with the labour class if they had been successful in automating everything? Killed them? Let them starve without jobs?”
Here again you’ve lost me. As I recollect, the original intent of what would become false Maria was Rotwang’s desire to replace his lost love Hel. Of course, false Maria was created to sow chaos and lead the workers to their own destruction. I don’t recall anything in the film that suggests that she was a “prototype” created to replace the workers. It has been a while since I’ve seen the film, so perhaps I’m forgetting some indication of this; if so, please detail where in the film this is indicated! In terms of your last point, I’m not sure where you are going with this point. Since I don’t think the film goes in this direction, I don’t think this issue is explored. In terms of the real world, this is a very good question, especially since I don’t think there is any question that AI technology will eventually displace most jobs in this country and around the world. The response to this is complex and difficult, too long winded for this space I think.
“The mediator of hands and head being the heart meant to me that because a thing can be done, it necessarily should be done. Sure, you can treat your workers badly, or replace them with machines, and that is true of capitalism or socialism. The difference is, or has been until recently, that you allow people a choice of how to live their non-work lives. Reasonable hours, an affordable home, enough to keep fed, and some time for personal reflection, prayer, family time, recreation.”
So, here we diverge greatly. I think treating workers “badly” is the whole story. Here we need to define “badly,” e.g., bad working conditions, yes, but more than that, little to no benefits, low wages, lack of sick leave, lack of family leave, and so on. Having a horrible job deeply impacts one’s overall quality of life. For many workers in this country and around the world, they don’t really have a “non-work life.” Moreover, their work is often mind numbing, body breaking, soul sucking work, so over 40 hours (and most workers work more than 40 hours a week, either via overtime, often not compensated as such, or just work more than one job just to survive) of their life is wasted, often creating mental and physical unwellness. Again, I think the film is spot on with how it reflects these horrible conditions.
In terms of the “heart” point specifically, as I mention in my blog post, this ending feels like an attempt to suggest that capitalism can be “reformed” and made more humanist, but (A) as we see today, capitalism only gets worse not better and (B) even if it could be reformed, workers will always still be exploited, not afforded equal recompense or equal say in the means of production.
“To my knowledge, none of those ‘luxuries’ are offered to anyone in communist/socialist countries. In capitalism, there is at least the chance to improve one’s place in life and society, through hard work and ability.”
Most so-called “communist/socialist” countries are in effect capitalist countries. Russia and China for sure and arguably Vietnam. And all these countries are “communist/socialist” in name only, e.g., all of them are totalitarian (fascist, authoritarian) regimes. Even at their conception, one could argue that they were always this. None of them bear a resemblance to Karl Marx’s original vision of “communism,” which was in effect a utopian vision, a classless, stateless, moneyless society where all people participated in the means of production and were able to self-determine and self-actualize what he called their “species potential” whatever that might be. For me, while I think this vision is truly visionary, it is also impractical for where we are as a species right now.
In terms of your second thought (“there is at least the chance to improve one’s place in life and society, through hard work and ability”), that is largely an overstatement, really the only way that capitalism continues to reconcile itself. The reality is that while yes, many people from the lower class rise their standard of living, a majority of them do not; most lower income working class individuals do what they are told to do, work hard, but they never get a payoff of better living conditions but instead work their whole lives just surviving.
“What I really see as evil is corporatism, which is truly dehumanizing, and a perversion of true capitalism….”
Corporatism is capitalism. Marx predicted corporatism and I would add monopolization and globalization, seeing how the ineluctable drive of capitalism is the consolidation and concentration of the means of production, resulting in wealth concentrated in the hands of fewer wealthy elites.
“When that much money and power is concentrated in the hands of any one small group of people, whatever their political leaning, the remainder of the people have no chance.”
Well, that’s true but again that’s capitalism, not communism/socialism, since in communism/socialism, the value of money is negated and thus such cravings of power are negated as well, or, well, in terms of moneyed interests, since of course the desire for power stems from other root causes.
“Joh Fredersen’s problem wasn’t that he was a capitalist, it was that he was disconnected from the people that made his world possible. Look at the style in which Joseph Stalin lived while his people stood in bread lines, and look what eventually happened to Nikolai Ceaucescu when the people had endured all they could. People in power are still people in the end, and subject to greed no matter their avowed conviction to equality of the classes.”
Hmm…that last line kind of contradicts what comes before. Capitalism is a mercenary, predatory, survival of the fittest ideology and it breeds like people. Frederson is the model of what we see today, sociopathic wealthy elites/CEOs who only care about their bottom line. Moreover, Stalin and Ceausescu were fascist psychopaths, reflective of their fascist ideology, again communist in name only.
So, getting back to your core points, while I would strongly argue that the film is so reflective of a capitalist ideology, I am open to reading it in terms of a totalitarian (fascist, authoritarian) regime as well. I read it more in terms of the former because of very specific analogies/allegories, the “head”/“hands” metaphor, the very specific exploration of the workers’ abusive conditions, the extreme prosperity of the upper class (possible because of the extreme exploitation of the workers), etc. In terms of a socialist response to this, I don’t think I actually say this, instead seeing in the film more a condemnation of capitalism, with no actual prescription. The difficulty here is that you are right about socialism in one particular way: Socialism has never really been actually – authentically — tried in any country. As I say above, countries that call themselves “communist” or “socialist” are “communist”/“socialist” in name only, instead actually in practice totalitarian (fascist, authoritarian) regimes, antithetical to Marx’s original vision. The closest we have really gotten to socialism are these pockets of “democratic socialism” (Scandinavian countries are most illustrative of this), which, while still being capitalist countries, they at least have a strong socialist component (heavy regulation of capitalism, a strong social safety net, redistributing wealth back into society, etc.) that makes life better for the people. Whether socialism could ever be implemented in an authentic way is an open question. In any case, what I would definitely stress is that we need a better economic system, whatever that might be (the “democratic socialism” or “degrowth” models seem like good starts), one that doesn’t exploit workers, doesn’t make workers disposable, doesn’t create these extreme disparities between rich and poor, doesn’t destroy the very planet we live on, and so on.
Anyway, thanks again for your thought provoking comments, I enjoyed the discussion!
-
Steven Lyle Jordan