Metropolis Essay, Research Paper

Arguably the first SF film ever made, Metropolis deserves recognition for much more. Its aesthetic tastes are solid: the vaulting, Art Deco of the ruling, futuristic upper-world contrasted with the crumbling mortar of the oppressed who build the future, yet are barred from it. The special effects were groundbreaking for their time, yet still have the power to awe. Today’s is the digital and computerized reign of Industrial Light and Magic, but Metropolis’ effects and techniques demand homage still — for their surreal elegance and sheer “wow” power.

Despite this, Metropolis has striking, jarring inconsistencies and incoherence. It is at times ambiguous without purpose. It is sometimes melodramatic and didactic, even beyond the fashion of its own day. Passing judgment on Metropolis’ flaws is difficult, however, because the film has not survived intact through the 70 years since its creation. Various releases from 1927 through today have running times between 83 and 128 minutes — a far cry from the director’s original three hours.

The rewards that make Metropolis especially worthwhile are also probably the difficulties that must be surmounted by the average, modern-day filmgoer. Director Fritz Lang’s style is German expressionism: highly manneristic, exaggerated, redolent with symbolism — not the realism of present-day shoot-’em-ups and character-driven plots. Metropolis is also a silent picture, with few subtitles — another obstacle for audiences used to very commercial, dialogue-studded modern films. The rewards are worth the labor, though, because the effects and art design are beautifully wrought and the worker-ruler-technology conflict, however simplified, reaches beyond the average scope of SF.