This week we discussed among other things, WWI's influence on world film markets, the development of the Hollywood studio system, and smaller international cinematic movements of the time. Emphasis on the industrialization of the medium, and the framing of cinema as product were stressed. Also outlined French Impressionism and German Expressionism, and Surrealism showing slides and referencing examples. Recommended further viewing would be The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Nosferatu, and all of Andalusian Dog (Un Chien Andalou)
Thursday's screening is scheduled to be Murnau's 'Sunrise' 1927, but I may instead show Lang's Metropolis 1927, and show only some excerpts from Sunrise.
Looking forward to insightful new posts after reading and viewing that synthesize new and original information, thoughts, reflections and reactions.
8 comments:
After watching Lang's Metropolis for what seems to be the millionth time, I can honestly say that I am still in love with the film. Every time that I watch it, I always manage to find something new and different that I never really saw in the same light as I did before.
I come back to this movie as "the old standby" as others seem to define it in the same manner. This movie is really something that managed to break the mold, and create something even bigger and better than could be imagined from that point in time forward. Between the vast sets, the design, the acting, depth of character, everything was so mind-blowing.
We look at things like the overpasses, the fancy cars, the planes, the electronics, and the complex machinery, and the first time, we don't really think too much of them. But then, it is taken into account that these sorta things were not even invented, or had ever been seen in the film world before this movie so it came as a huge shock, to say the very least.
Then there's the acting, this film began to set the bar for what acting should be for future films. The characters in this movie are developed, and there is a great deal of emotion conveyed, and accurately at that.
There is nothing really else to say about it other than the fact that this film serves as a paramount to the entire film industry for years and years to come.
In the viewing event of Metropolis, the class was introduced to the first feature film shown in study. The definition of feature film took a different connotation previously as it, meant an unusual film that could be featured in the advertising. However, I’m referring to Metropolis in today’s terms as a longer film. Metropolis was in fact in length a picture typical of films produced in present time. This is a feat that I could imagine labor some. Therefore, I can see the high implications the film would have after its creation. The impression I conceive after watching Metropolis and having a glimpse into similar movies from that era is that they arose a nationalist pride. The movies seem to carry a sentiment of national arousal. This is a powerful tool used in that place in time to band its citizens together and I think Metropolis took that role. It showed the world that Germany was a force because up until that point in time Germany was the beating boy of Europe.
Another aspect that stood out about Metropolis is the set design and intertitles. The set design was awe striking because the setting incorporated things we find typical today, but I could imagine did not present itself then. For instance, Franz included elevators, freeway bridges and high rise buildings. The foresight to visualize this set is extraordinary.
In terms of the intertitles, the language used was epic and conveyed the grandiose of the set properly. In addition, it helped the film flow continually. What did not work in the movie was the music. The music was too epic and it strained the ear and in turn the eye. However, the ways the faces were manipulated helped control the shortcomings of the music. How Franz was able to create the eyes of some of the characters at points was impressive. Their eyes almost looked like they had contacts in, but I doubt contacts were invented by that time.
In terms of the other effects in the movie, what proved successful were the robot scenes and the flooding scene. I took both of those sequences with a grain of salt, but even still they were well done. First, when the messiah turned into the robot and after when she dissolved back to the robot were well executed. How they were able to transition the human body into robot form without any apparent cuts in the film was great. The end flood scene also surprised me. I thought that a miniature version of the city would be flooded and it would look ridiculous, however they actually were able to do most of the flood on an actual set. This seemed like an unattainable feat for me given the time period, but they only had to do the compete disintegration of the city limits with a model and even that was filmed to look realistic.
The last thing I would like to comment on in regards to Metropolis would be its underlying theme. I could not help but notice its similarities to the rise of Christianity in its storyline. First of all, the teachings of Christ were first preformed in concubines under the city because that was the only sanction they would have to teach without threat (this could be after Christ’s death and not while he was alive?). In addition, they way the new religion empowered the poor and underclass was similar to Christianity. The last predominant comparison is the sacrifice at the end. Even though the actual prophet was not sacrificed as when pertaining to Christianity, the fact that there was the ceremony showed the theme carried out from beginning to end. Overall, Metropolis was a groundbreaking film then and it still holds its grit to this day. It’s safe to assume that people today are still inspired and use the film as a benchmark for their own work.
After watching Metropolis for the first time I was surprised at what Lang was able to accomplish at such an early point in cinema. This film was truly ahead of it's time.
The narrative and the script were very well put together, and not choppy like many other films of the time. The scenes seemed to flow and the plot was rather easy to follow (especially for a silent film).
The acting in Metropolis was arguably better than any other film that preceded it(and even better than the acting in many modern films). There was very little over exaggeration by the actors, which I see as a common flaw of many silent films.
Lang's portayal of the "future" through his props was also shockingly accurate(i.e. highways, overpasses, the city in general).
Overall, Lang's Metropolis was a giant leap for filmmaking. It was truly a landmark in film and reflected the obviously tedious work that was put into it's production.
When I began watching Metropolis I had no idea what to expect. It really took me by surprise that back then cuts in the movie were possible. The edit of the machine during the beginning of the film to look like a beast devouring the hopeless employee's was unbelievable. While visually it was spectacular, its juxtaposition of the lower working class as food for the "machines" was a pivotal edit in the story-line. As many have already said the set was a masterpiece of its own. Lang's depiction of future society was eerily accurate with highway overpasses, huge building filled cities, elevators, and even in one scene a power outage of the city.
While the acting was overly dramatic in some scenes (More because it was a silent film) the acting was very powerful. One of my favorite scenes was the chase between scientist Rotwang and the workers prophet Maria. Madly chasing her with a flashlight you only know where she is, but only because the character pursuing her knows also.It makes the audience want to see where she is, but only at the expense of her being captured. Another great feat I noticed in the acting was the perception of man as machine. In some of the introductory shots of Joh heading into the underworld show the workers working at a very mechanical rhythm. Never showing there faces making them more part of the machine than a person.
This film was a greatly influential piece that sparked ideas for generations of filmmakers to come.
I was really surprised. I had an underlying assumption that all films back then were amateur-ish. That's not to say that I expected it to be bad, just that Lang's Metropolis felt much more modern as far as cinematography and camera choices than other films we've viewed. In addition, the set was a series of actual sets instead of having the movie taped outside or in a public place. I liked that a lot.
The scene with the robot and the superimposing of the woman's figure onto it was also a great leap into the realm of capability in the film media. It set a particular standard for the development of future film concepts and ideas. It was wonderful for me to learn that this was the original movie that both Star Wars and Frankenstein aspects had been taken from.
Overall, though early and hard to understand a times, it was a wonderful film. For a silent film, it was very intense and kept the viewer captured throughout.
Metropolis Fun Fact #1
Rumored to be one of Hitler's favorite films
Metropolis was undoubtedly many late 1920's/30's citizens favorite movie as it was very groundbreaking for its time. One of the more expensive movies (obviously for the set/effects) of the time it almost sent the production company into bankruptcy - taking inflation into account, to make this movie today would cost $200 million (similar to the Titanic production costs).
As Garrett pointed out, Lang's vision of the future is surprisingly accurate when compared to other movies even those more modern.
Metropolis was the first thing I saw in class from early film history that I really thought had lasting value. The meme's transmitted from this movie were astounding. The movie gave a lot of its ideas and inspiration to George Lucas and I can definitely see that in Metropolis with its beautiful sets, strong characters, and special effects (i.e. flooding of the city).
Although some in the class didn't enjoy the music I thought it to be appropriate and at times very good. The acting in this movie was excellent for a silent film and I always knew what the characters emotions were and I could follow the plot. If the movie was remade today they would probably not use so many long shots and cut a lot but editing was not even fully developed at this time. I can't believe they used things like elevators and highway overpasses without ever seeing one because they look almost exactly what they are supposed to look like. I can see why the budget was so high.
Metropolis was an astonishing piece of art and is still today studied because of the precedents it set.
Metropolis really seemed to up the bar of film making. It's length and the fact that it's a silent film may make you think you would loose interest, but you don't. That aspect alone renders it a great of it's time. It brought a whole new level to acting in my opinion. This film truly conveys human emotion through action that other films didn't. You get a sense of what each character is about and how they clash with each other. The story appeals to human emotion and gets you psychologically involved. It feels weird to relate to this movie and it's story line at present time when at the time it was released, the sets were completely fantasy. The image and location of the story was far ahead of it's time and took great skill and imagination. The sets also help render this film as a great.
Post a Comment