Worth noting: The writer of Metropolis, Thea von Harbou, became a member of the Nazi Party and the film is very much reflective of fascist politics. Fascism, despite being ideologically opposed to communism, is keenly aware of class conflict and seeks to head it off by bringing the classes into alignment under the joined concepts of ethnic/racial identity and the Nation State. Metropolis discredits the revolution of the workers by portraying it as stoked by an "outside agitator" (Rotwang literally translates to "Red Cheek" in German) and suggesting that, though their conditions should be improved, they should not fundamentally challenge the power structure of Metropolis. Lang, very much not a Nazi, would later call Metropolis a "fairy tale" and that he himself was not very politically minded when he made it. Stylistically, Metropolis is indeed a Masterpiece. But under the hood, where its ideology lives? Yeah, it has some problems.
Wow! When I was watching that part about the handshake of the classes I thought: "Wait, that sounds a lot like the idea of the Volkskörper of the Nazis: The body of the people in which everybody is (= has to) be playing their part and nobody will (= is allowed to) complain." In Bertold Brecht's "The song of the class enemy" there is this one line refering to the rise of the Nazis: "...and many of us said: 'There is no class enemy anylonger' ", because that's exactly what the Nazis wanted them to believe.
Hitler apparently loved the movie and used a bit of the terminology and rhetoric from it when forming his ideology, since the movie was firmly in the German zeitgeist while he was rising to power.
Since I keep seeing this referred to as an indisputable flawless masterpiece it's refreshing seeing a more nuanced take on it. I find it important to realize that all classic masterpieces can still have flaws and are worth discussing so we don't just all turn into parrots or something.
Sometimes the flaws are why we love something so much. The most iconic moments in film are sometimes ad-libbed, accidents, and are definitely not planned for. I think people consider things Masterpieces because they are willing to overlook flaws and feel deeply connected to a work of art.
ltflak, Most film critics, professors, and all around cinephiles I've come across hold it in pretty high regard. The recent restoration of the film was successful. It is the closest thing to Lang's vision. Only three minutes or so were left out because the footage was so badly damaged.
A lot of people consider Metropolis a masterpiece. It doesn't need to be a (massive) success to be considered a masterpiece, all it's need is to be good. And Metropolis is really good, for this reason the most of people who saw the movie, consider it a masterpiece. Also, directors/ writer/ producers who actually saw, at the time and even after WWII, they mostly where influenced by it.
One of my favourite films, evidently also Hitler's but I suspect for different reasons. In general I agree with your reading of the movie, the resolution through Freder/Maria seemed wrong headed, especially with all the religious iconography involved, very top down. And the foreman definitely was in a privileged position too, not really representing the other workers, a class traitor you could say. I've always thought, too, that Hitler completely missed the point of the movie; the character whose philosophy seemed closest to his was Rotwang, who wanted to sow chaos between the capitalists and the workers through robot-Maria. Very nihilistic. But the visuals, the cityscapes and workplaces, the mouth of Baal and especially where Maria gets copied by the robot-Maria are all terrific, and have been very influential from Frankenstein to Blade Runner and beyond. A truly great movie. Definitely think this is a movie that will provoke discussion and different readings for at least another 90 years. Many thanks.
I think this is one of the most intelligent readings of the Metropolis movie i've seen so far, great job Renegade Cut! I actually had the pleasure of seeing Metropolis at a local theatre in 2013. Thanks and happy New Year! :)
To me this seems like the kind of movie a social democrat, of the European and American variety, would be happy with. Generally, its seen that the mediators of the capitalist system have to be left-wing parties. Via social welfare, allowing the existence of unions and corporations, and heavy regulations on both as to make sure neither upset the "capitalist system with a human face". In fact, in German history, the very first welfare laws were enacted by Ottoman Von Bismark in the mid-1800s in order to quell any unrest and prevent Socialist parties from getting powerful. But just like in Metropolis, it doesn't really address any central issues of poverty. I remember a few years ago when the left wing party SYRIZA was elected in Greece, and they promised to bring an end to the massive financial spiral that Greece had been in for years. But that didn't happen, and Greece has worse austerity problems than before, with some fascists thrown in there as well. To me, Metropolis is a depiction of social systems from a liberal point of view. It's important to be open to many different perspectives on the world. You don't have to agree with them, or even acknowledge they ought to exist, but it's only to understand another viewpoint.
The message I got from it was one of "class collaboration", which is a kind of euphemism thrown around in Fascist/Capitalist (and naively taken at face value by Liberals/moderates) circles that effectively meant workers should stop complaining, not unionise, lick their bosses' boots and be honoured for the privilege to do so.
I think this movie as more of a timeless critique of greed and hubris, although I agree with you that the movie does naively assume that the answer to social warfare is a savior from the elite class who understands the plight of the Proletariat and can so unite the two in harmony. I still like the message of the importance and power of empathy though.
Yes, but Freder is the perfect Prince Charming IMO. I fell in love with the actor/role immediately as I saw it for the first time. It made me obsess over a man who was born 100 years before me and died 5 years before it, too. But, his lines and scenes made me have butterflies in my belly. I still think he's the most beautiful male celebrity to exist in the last century. Thea Von Harbou cast him just because of that, because of how beautiful he looked, and she was only more of a genius for that. :D
An interesting analysis of a famous film. My contribution is to call attention to the use of montage in the Russian style as shown in the film in most of your clips. Sergei Eisenstein produced the "Battleship Potemkin" in 1922. His montage of the Odessa steps is a classic of the form and I certainly see echoes of it in your production. Eisenstein stated that "montage is the dialectic of film." The script of Metropolis was begun in 1924 and the effective use of montage had perhaps a dual meaning.
To me I left enjoying the composition of the overall film and the amazing set design, but thematically, Renegade Cut hit all of the points worth criticizing, although they take it a bit better than I do. I'd go so far as to say the class collaborationist aspects seeming approving of a corporatist, fascistic viewpoint, given the rest of the film is mired in the occult, a view of the working class as without any actual leader, being rendered useless without one, and the leader being rendered useless without the workers. These two forces are parts of a machine that should be screwed in to keep the functioning of a well ordered society, without the meddling of a "deviant" hermit inventor establishing the ruin of this society, as Rotwing is entirely trying to undermine the founder of the society. This film is not a fascist movie, however the themes it evokes can be construed into that narrative, to me.
Funny, I was thinking that the main protagonist being someone from the upper class uniting the two felt disingenuous. Once I learned about Marxist Theory in Speech and Ideology in High School, I didn't make the connection until now. Watching your video changed on how I view the film. Though I have to ask about the robot/lady=fake messiah (using messiah in the loosest term) plot. The man who created the bot was not exactly poor, just hair brained, yet I never understood what the accomplishment of that entire plot thread was about. Is it something I havent catched from my first viewing or is it something from the lost footage?
I read it as vengeance as Rotwang worshipped Hel and blames Fredrics father for her death, subverting his plan into accomplishing his revenge by killing Fredric and stripping the father of both power and future heirs,he fails and attempts good old fashioned murder. Just my interpretation of that narrative part.
Dude, why did you put a shot of a Sarajevo street at night at the 1:18 mark??? I did not expect to see my home city in a video about Metropolis, did you visit us recently? Would love to meet up if you ever come this way again, and then you can find the French bandes desinee about the making of Metropolis that was drawn by two Sarajevans.
You do this very well... I love how you introduce philosophical and theological theory with film critique. Do you have a classics background? Keep it up and if you find a way to explain Juche that would be awesome!
A powerful ruling class exploits a class of people for the purposes of power generation... And in the end it ends in some sort of weird truce that doesn't really resolve the long term consequences of the failed revolution/counter revolution conflict... And christ imagery, ect. Yeah there are a couple parallels between The Matrix and Metropolis there.
great analysis, many thanks! love watching videos like this. in short, would you say the film promotes centrist views (i.e. the upper class son brings together the right and the left) or would you rather say it promotes rightist views, as the reason for the class difference and struggle isn't correctly outlined in the film according to Marxist theory?
We need a better quality of Nobles. The whole time I was rooting for the Father Character. It must be tough having to put up with that hippie jackass of a son, but he really pulled through in the end. Wholesome ending.
Good 101, but I wish your usual rigor for research would have lead to a small Marxist bibliography at the end. There is a lot of Marxist analysis of film; partly because of the early days of the Soviet Union and their love for film, and partly because a lot of us are just nerds.
You mentioned "what they are getting paid". I actually wanted to hopefully see the inside of one of their apartments or any clues as to wealth and individuality. One thing I can say is that at least these guys have women that don't cheat. You can't say that about the modern era.
I always read the film stating the revolt as wrong in part because it seems like the rioters don't want to unseat the corrupt power so much as they want to pull down everything. You said it yourself; humans can't survive in the wilderness, and the flooding of the undercity would seem to be that fact illustrated in the film.
This is very interesting. While I did study this in school, it's rare to see anyone discuss the faults of the film. Yes I still enjoy the film, but it does oversimplify class conflict.
I think with the handshake at the end, Fritz Lang unconsciously imagined Social Democracy or some form of what they call today in Germany Christian Democracy. The end message is clear, no matter how much suffering the workers endure, Capitalism still remains the norm.
Were I to be in charge of remaking this film I would keep the iffy political messaging in place but at the climax of the film I'd cut away to an audience watching in dirty cinemas, squalid apartments and on polluted streets: revealing the whole thing to have been a propaganda film.
I enjoyed your video essay. I'll add that while it can seem that "Metropolis" is deifying the upper class, instead imo the film is implying that an upper class is inevitable. Revolution in the film is not the best option; better to reform the social structure than to try to violently over throw it. The details are not about trade unions but revolution as a warning. The film turns to psychology & morality. The Hands, Head & Heart; (ID, Superego & Ego) points to awareness/compassion to find resolution.
Coming from a Marxist position myself, this is a great analysis and I commend you for that opening remake about not caring to lose right wing twitter subscribers. Great work Leon.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Worth noting: The writer of Metropolis, Thea von Harbou, became a member of the Nazi Party and the film is very much reflective of fascist politics. Fascism, despite being ideologically opposed to communism, is keenly aware of class conflict and seeks to head it off by bringing the classes into alignment under the joined concepts of ethnic/racial identity and the Nation State. Metropolis discredits the revolution of the workers by portraying it as stoked by an "outside agitator" (Rotwang literally translates to "Red Cheek" in German) and suggesting that, though their conditions should be improved, they should not fundamentally challenge the power structure of Metropolis. Lang, very much not a Nazi, would later call Metropolis a "fairy tale" and that he himself was not very politically minded when he made it. Stylistically, Metropolis is indeed a Masterpiece. But under the hood, where its ideology lives? Yeah, it has some problems.
Wow!
When I was watching that part about the handshake of the classes I thought: "Wait, that sounds a lot like the idea of the Volkskörper of the Nazis: The body of the people in which everybody is (= has to) be playing their part and nobody will (= is allowed to) complain."
In Bertold Brecht's "The song of the class enemy" there is this one line refering to the rise of the Nazis: "...and many of us said: 'There is no class enemy anylonger' ", because that's exactly what the Nazis wanted them to believe.
Hitler apparently loved the movie and used a bit of the terminology and rhetoric from it when forming his ideology, since the movie was firmly in the German zeitgeist while he was rising to power.
Since I keep seeing this referred to as an indisputable flawless masterpiece it's refreshing seeing a more nuanced take on it. I find it important to realize that all classic masterpieces can still have flaws and are worth discussing so we don't just all turn into parrots or something.
Sometimes the flaws are why we love something so much. The most iconic moments in film are sometimes ad-libbed, accidents, and are definitely not planned for. I think people consider things Masterpieces because they are willing to overlook flaws and feel deeply connected to a work of art.
ltflak, Most film critics, professors, and all around cinephiles I've come across hold it in pretty high regard. The recent restoration of the film was successful. It is the closest thing to Lang's vision. Only three minutes or so were left out because the footage was so badly damaged.
A lot of people consider Metropolis a masterpiece. It doesn't need to be a (massive) success to be considered a masterpiece, all it's need is to be good. And Metropolis is really good, for this reason the most of people who saw the movie, consider it a masterpiece. Also, directors/ writer/ producers who actually saw, at the time and even after WWII, they mostly where influenced by it.
One of my favourite films, evidently also Hitler's but I suspect for different reasons. In general I agree with your reading of the movie, the resolution through Freder/Maria seemed wrong headed, especially with all the religious iconography involved, very top down. And the foreman definitely was in a privileged position too, not really representing the other workers, a class traitor you could say.
I've always thought, too, that Hitler completely missed the point of the movie; the character whose philosophy seemed closest to his was Rotwang, who wanted to sow chaos between the capitalists and the workers through robot-Maria. Very nihilistic.
But the visuals, the cityscapes and workplaces, the mouth of Baal and especially where Maria gets copied by the robot-Maria are all terrific, and have been very influential from Frankenstein to Blade Runner and beyond. A truly great movie.
Definitely think this is a movie that will provoke discussion and different readings for at least another 90 years. Many thanks.
I think this is one of the most intelligent readings of the Metropolis movie i've seen so far, great job Renegade Cut! I actually had the pleasure of seeing Metropolis at a local theatre in 2013. Thanks and happy New Year! :)
To me this seems like the kind of movie a social democrat, of the European and American variety, would be happy with. Generally, its seen that the mediators of the capitalist system have to be left-wing parties. Via social welfare, allowing the existence of unions and corporations, and heavy regulations on both as to make sure neither upset the "capitalist system with a human face". In fact, in German history, the very first welfare laws were enacted by Ottoman Von Bismark in the mid-1800s in order to quell any unrest and prevent Socialist parties from getting powerful. But just like in Metropolis, it doesn't really address any central issues of poverty. I remember a few years ago when the left wing party SYRIZA was elected in Greece, and they promised to bring an end to the massive financial spiral that Greece had been in for years. But that didn't happen, and Greece has worse austerity problems than before, with some fascists thrown in there as well. To me, Metropolis is a depiction of social systems from a liberal point of view. It's important to be open to many different perspectives on the world. You don't have to agree with them, or even acknowledge they ought to exist, but it's only to understand another viewpoint.
The message I got from it was one of "class collaboration", which is a kind of euphemism thrown around in Fascist/Capitalist (and naively taken at face value by Liberals/moderates) circles that effectively meant workers should stop complaining, not unionise, lick their bosses' boots and be honoured for the privilege to do so.
Ah Metropolis One of my favorite science-fiction films a silent movie classic, I love the story
I think this movie as more of a timeless critique of greed and hubris, although I agree with you that the movie does naively assume that the answer to social warfare is a savior from the elite class who understands the plight of the Proletariat and can so unite the two in harmony. I still like the message of the importance and power of empathy though.
Yes, but Freder is the perfect Prince Charming IMO. I fell in love with the actor/role immediately as I saw it for the first time. It made me obsess over a man who was born 100 years before me and died 5 years before it, too. But, his lines and scenes made me have butterflies in my belly. I still think he's the most beautiful male celebrity to exist in the last century. Thea Von Harbou cast him just because of that, because of how beautiful he looked, and she was only more of a genius for that. :D
An interesting analysis of a famous film. My contribution is to call attention to the use of montage in the Russian style as shown in the film in most of your clips. Sergei Eisenstein produced the "Battleship Potemkin" in 1922. His montage of the Odessa steps is a classic of the form and I certainly see echoes of it in your production. Eisenstein stated that "montage is the dialectic of film." The script of Metropolis was begun in 1924 and the effective use of montage had perhaps a dual meaning.
Sorry you didn’t care much for Metropolis. It’s one of my favorite movies and I commissioned this episode. :(
Conner Nielsen you should be proud it’s a great topic and video and thanks for commissioning it!
What does it mean to you then?
To me I left enjoying the composition of the overall film and the amazing set design, but thematically, Renegade Cut hit all of the points worth criticizing, although they take it a bit better than I do. I'd go so far as to say the class collaborationist aspects seeming approving of a corporatist, fascistic viewpoint, given the rest of the film is mired in the occult, a view of the working class as without any actual leader, being rendered useless without one, and the leader being rendered useless without the workers. These two forces are parts of a machine that should be screwed in to keep the functioning of a well ordered society, without the meddling of a "deviant" hermit inventor establishing the ruin of this society, as Rotwing is entirely trying to undermine the founder of the society. This film is not a fascist movie, however the themes it evokes can be construed into that narrative, to me.
I always preferred the Osamu Tezuka version myself.
Funny, I was thinking that the main protagonist being someone from the upper class uniting the two felt disingenuous. Once I learned about Marxist Theory in Speech and Ideology in High School, I didn't make the connection until now. Watching your video changed on how I view the film.
Though I have to ask about the robot/lady=fake messiah (using messiah in the loosest term) plot. The man who created the bot was not exactly poor, just hair brained, yet I never understood what the accomplishment of that entire plot thread was about. Is it something I havent catched from my first viewing or is it something from the lost footage?
I read it as vengeance as Rotwang worshipped Hel and blames Fredrics father for her death, subverting his plan into accomplishing his revenge by killing Fredric and stripping the father of both power and future heirs,he fails and attempts good old fashioned murder.
Just my interpretation of that narrative part.
Dude, why did you put a shot of a Sarajevo street at night at the 1:18 mark??? I did not expect to see my home city in a video about Metropolis, did you visit us recently? Would love to meet up if you ever come this way again, and then you can find the French bandes desinee about the making of Metropolis that was drawn by two Sarajevans.
You're are not wrong about the naivete, but I still love this movie for visual and technical reasons
I feel like this movie was the one who created the ‘Final battle on a church’ trope.
Well this was one scary ass movie , especially when the robot woman was dancing.
I notice that you are completely leaving out the golem and the tinkerer.
You do this very well... I love how you introduce philosophical and theological theory with film critique. Do you have a classics background? Keep it up and if you find a way to explain Juche that would be awesome!
Also do you like Rob Ager? You guys are both great but different and it works
Renegade Cut educate me? I watched a couple of his vids... might have missed something big. Didn’t mean any offense.
i read that as matrix theory
A powerful ruling class exploits a class of people for the purposes of power generation... And in the end it ends in some sort of weird truce that doesn't really resolve the long term consequences of the failed revolution/counter revolution conflict... And christ imagery, ect. Yeah there are a couple parallels between The Matrix and Metropolis there.
I'd watch a movie about linear algebra.
Need to watch this again.
great analysis, many thanks! love watching videos like this. in short, would you say the film promotes centrist views (i.e. the upper class son brings together the right and the left) or would you rather say it promotes rightist views, as the reason for the class difference and struggle isn't correctly outlined in the film according to Marxist theory?
seize the means of production
Dorothy DeCann or if that's not possible, I'd settle for the memes.
eat the rich
We need a better quality of Nobles. The whole time I was rooting for the Father Character. It must be tough having to put up with that hippie jackass of a son, but he really pulled through in the end. Wholesome ending.
Good 101, but I wish your usual rigor for research would have lead to a small Marxist bibliography at the end. There is a lot of Marxist analysis of film; partly because of the early days of the Soviet Union and their love for film, and partly because a lot of us are just nerds.
It's refreshing to see a true Marxist critique of this movie. Thank you.
Brilliant analysis. This made me a fan of your.
love that sonata
You mentioned "what they are getting paid". I actually wanted to hopefully see the inside of one of their apartments or any clues as to wealth and individuality.
One thing I can say is that at least these guys have women that don't cheat. You can't say that about the modern era.
I loved this video! Never saw this movie like that.
This is very good.
I always read the film stating the revolt as wrong in part because it seems like the rioters don't want to unseat the corrupt power so much as they want to pull down everything. You said it yourself; humans can't survive in the wilderness, and the flooding of the undercity would seem to be that fact illustrated in the film.
This is very interesting. While I did study this in school, it's rare to see anyone discuss the faults of the film. Yes I still enjoy the film, but it does oversimplify class conflict.
I think with the handshake at the end, Fritz Lang unconsciously imagined Social Democracy or some form of what they call today in Germany Christian Democracy. The end message is clear, no matter how much suffering the workers endure, Capitalism still remains the norm.
Thanks for the video ! Really like your critics that touch leftists topics.
How is this movie so beautiful
Great analysis although love the movie
Thank you! I was always reccommended Metropolis as some glorious leftist anthem but I was really disappointed when I actually watched it.
This movie predicted our current state of the world 100 years later.
Were I to be in charge of remaking this film I would keep the iffy political messaging in place but at the climax of the film I'd cut away to an audience watching in dirty cinemas, squalid apartments and on polluted streets: revealing the whole thing to have been a propaganda film.
Bravo.
Just putting it out there: you don’t have to be “right wing” to be ideologically opposed to Marxism.
But you have to be a centrist, though.
Is no other way of explaining without using marxist theory?
Could AI save humanity?
Power to the people.
I enjoyed your video essay. I'll add that while it can seem that "Metropolis" is deifying the upper class, instead imo the film is implying that an upper class is inevitable. Revolution in the film is not the best option; better to reform the social structure than to try to violently over throw it. The details are not about trade unions but revolution as a warning. The film turns to psychology & morality. The Hands, Head & Heart; (ID, Superego & Ego) points to awareness/compassion to find resolution.
Coming from a Marxist position myself, this is a great analysis and I commend you for that opening remake about not caring to lose right wing twitter subscribers. Great work Leon.
It's slavery.
9 hours without a single Reich troll; I am astonished and somehow saddened. I will reflect on my emptiness and hopefully become closer to the force.
Renegade Cut did you mean "no Nazis allowed"? In which case I agree
I'm liking these videos discussing left wing theory keep up the good work
you forgot the church
heirarchy seems pretty natural though no?
Looks at cats what do cats act like
I'm a marxist in a capitalist body.