Talk:Metropolis (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Metropolis (film) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Metropolis (film) was a good article candidate, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision if you feel there was a mistake.

Date of review: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{FailedGA|insert date in any format here}}

".. society has been divided into two rigid castes: one of planners, who live above the earth in wealth, and another of workers who live underground in poverty. One of the workers ventures below ground and is astonished by what she sees" -- Shouldn't this read either "One of the workers ventures above ground" or "One of the planners ventures below ground"?

Also suggest we change "planners" to "managers".

Why is called 1927 movie when the premiere was in 1926? --zeno 07:19 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Because the premiere was in 1927, not 1926. --Brion 07:42 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Interesting note -- I saw Metropolis last year in Los Angeles at the Silent Movie Theater. They brought in the original organist that played at the film's US premiere in the 1920s. I wish I could remember the guy's name, so we could put it here. Anyone have any idea? Chadloder 06:38 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

No idea, but you could probably call the theater up and ask. I bet they got records. (Incidentally, they have the most text-unfriendly website I have had the mispleasure of encountering on a ssslllooowww modem connection. On the other hand, they do put on a nice picture show!) --Brion 06:55 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
Aha! It was Bob Mitchell, I remember his face! Here's a cool article about him: [1]. Does anyone think he's worth mentioning here (and does he deserve his own article)? Chadloder 06:58 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

On the UNESCO site it is stated that the reconstructed version by the Murnau Foundation was shown at the Berlin Film Festival in Feb. 2001. --zeno 06:40 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder if the Wells reference should be kept. The idea of the division of of society in two classes has nothing that is very original. For anyone who know something about Germany in 1927 iut's obvious that the film is influenced by some socialist/marxist ideology. Wells is also considered as supporter of socialism. What else ? Is the aristocracy cannibal in Metropolis ? Of course I'm quite certain that Fritz Lang has read "The Time machine" but if this worth 2 para., the influence of Karlm Marx or Rosa Luxemburg needs at least ten para. Ericd 20:46, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've cut the 2 para. about "The Time Machine" for 2 reasons :
- They were exposing the plot of "The Time Machine" that is IMO out of subject;
- After some research it seems H.G. Wells himself was one of the most active propangandist about his influence on the movie (that "contains no new idea at all").
BTW who has seen "Things to come ?"
Ericd 15:33, 12 Aug 2003 (UTC)

--- The most stupid quote about Metropolis (in French) :

Cine Magazine numero 14, 8 avril 1927: "Les masses de figurants composent des foules dociles, comme seuls pouvaient l'être des allemands " Ericd 14:19, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Most expensive silent film ever

I was under the impression that Ben Hur from 1926 was the most expensive silent film ever made. Iam 02:17, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

The official site for the most recent restoration [2] says that the film cost 5.3 million marks (also in 1926). How does that compare? - EurekaLott 04:24, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sadly, I'm separated from my textbooks right now, but I'm sure D. W. Griffith's Birth of a Nation and Intolerance ranked up there, as did some of the Italian historical spectaculars.
Anville 15:50, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A few points :

1) I have doubts that NY gave Lang the idea for the film. Metropolis was announced in June 1924, he didn't travel to New York until October 1924, where he declares to the NY Telegraph "I'm here to see the new cameras and study American cities for my next film project." I suspect that Lang simply embelished his story when Kracauer interviewed him for Caligari to Hitler, I've caught him telling little fibs and stories on several occasions. (Metropolis, un film de Fritz Lang, La Cinématheque Francaise, p139 ISBN 2-86754-024-0)

2) The original plot was far more complex than what has been written here. The background story is that both Fredersen and Rotwang were in love with a woman called Hel. She married Fredersen and bore him a son, Freder, the hero of the story, but she died in the process. Rotwang never accepted to have lost Hel to Fredersen and created the robot to be her simulacrum. There is a lost scene in the film where Fredersen sees a massive memorial in Rotwang's house and Rotwang confronts him. Saying that he only made one mistake in his life and that was to forget Hel was a woman and Fredersen was a man. (Patrick R.W.A. R. 17:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC))

Lang never said it was based on a VISIT to New York. Just New York, possible w/o the vist. Pictures, anecdotes, etc. SIckBoy 23:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plurals

In reverting "Marks" back to "mark", Themanwithoutapast said:

as a german native speaker I assure you it is 'mark' same as 'dollar' in plural

But I don't understand this remark combined with the reversion.

In American English we might write "$7 million" or "DM 7 million" or we might say or write "seven million dollars"; when the unit follows, we pluralize the unit so I expect we'd also say "seven million Marks". So why would you change "7 million Marks" to "7 million Mark"?

Atlant 18:18, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are right - it is a controversial issue whether to use "mark" or "marks" in English, although the German plural word is Mark [3]. So I leave it to your discretion if you want to change it back to Marks. Themanwithoutapast 22:58, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
although the German plural word is Mark
I suspected this might be the case. I'd lean towards "marks" but let's see what others think first (assuming anyone cares to express an opinion).
Atlant 12:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of the semantics; does anyone have anything to back up the 7 mil number? All my sources say 1,300,000.

[edit] Beneath a Steel Sky

After removing a similar sentence from the Beneath a Steel Sky article, I realized that it's mentioned here as well:

In the early 1994 a full speech PC Game Beneath A Steel Sky is set in a similar dystopian Metropolis. The orchestra music is eerily similar to Metropolis. (the final paragraph of section 7)

What "orchestra music", of the many soundtracks that have been produced over the years, is referred to here? I have some difficulty imagining a soundtrack to Metropolis that is "eerily similar" to that of Beneath a Steel Sky. I'll leave alone for a moment the fact that I can see little similarity at all between the two, other than that they're both dystopian science fiction. EldKatt (Talk) 19:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Costume ?

Does the Robot costume from Metropolis still exist ? I read an article about the Berlin Film Museum which contains a small photo of what apears to be the costume on display. I remember when I walked by the museum a couple of years ago a poster showed the costume as it apears in the film but unfortunately I didn't have time to see the museum ( would it really be worth blowing 12 Euro's to spend 20 minutes running thru the museum ?) Im just a little curious as to wether or not they actually have the original or a replica ? Dowew 02:13, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

From what I understand it was probably destroyed. Possibly in the final scenes of the film, where it was tied to the stake and set on fire or lost at some point after that (during WWII maybe). Some of the 12 sins masks made for the film from the same material did survive. According to Bertina Schultze-Mittendorf, it was destroyed during filming. --Patrick R.W.A. R. 15:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] history of `robot'

I just included a bit on how the robot ``turning against its creators in Metropolis echoes R.U.R. (aka Rossum's Universal Robots). R.U.R. created the term `robot' for an automoton, and it's likely that Lang or Harbou was influenced by the play. R.U.R. also ends with a robot uprising.

So that's why I added it.

This only applies to the shortened Version of the film, in the original, the Machine-Man does exactly what it is told by its creator(s)! Robot was never used in the original version. Maybe Pollock was influenced by R.U.R. when he created the shortened version. EmTeedee 13:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best version of this film?

What is the "best version" of this film that can be obtained today? I'm judging "best" in terms of how close it is to the original, i.e. it doesn't have large parts of the plot snipped out. The article doesn't mention this; it just discusses a list of various adaptations of the movie without saying which is closest to the original. I think this can be done in a NPOV way and would be a very good edition to the page. A good number of people are going to be coming here to find out what is the best version of the film, and this page should tell them that. --Cyde Weys votetalk 15:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Kino DVD version, the original film was 4189 meters long, running 153 minutes. The Kino version, which I believe is the most extensive, runs 3153 meters. A quarter of the film appears to have been lost to the ages.

The deal is that when the film was exported, the foreign theatres felt that the film was too complex for audiences, and that they would be better served with a homunculus story. They pared down the workers' revolt and love aspects of the story, and censored quite a bit of the red light district scenes.

When this version did well in the US, a similar version was constructed for Germany. As a result, most copies are missing the same scenes. All restorations have the same problems--i.e. only three-quarters of the film.

I believe that the 2002 Kino DVD version is the best. They worked with "the Bundesarkiv-Filmarkiv, the Munich Filmmuseum, and the Deutsches Filminstitut in Wiesbaden" to find as much footage and the best copies of the footage that they could find. This version was also the first film to be placed on UNESCOs Memory of the World Register.

This version has the same major defects that all extant copies of the film have. It is unlikely that a substantially better version will be made unless new footage is found, which is very unlikely at this point. --Superluser 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see more info about the Kino DVD in the article. aditsu 09:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
You should definitely go for the 2002 Kino version. I've seen four versions of this film. By far the worst is the 1984 disco version, with extracts of 'Queen' playing. It is no exagerration to say that it is a different film - the music bears no relation to the action (it's not even in time with the film), and the plot is even more horribly simplified, so that key explanations are left out. By contrast, the 2002 version was a revelation. Without its captions about missing scenes, much of the film seemed arbitrary, ambiguous, or completely unexplained; a mess of a film with occasional flashes of beauty. The 2002 restoration makes this film actually come across as a coherent, well-structured epic story, and properly explains the relationships of all the characters.
For example, the Tower of Babel scene is crucial in explaining the underlying story and its philosophy. Two of the versions I've seen do not make it clear that this is a flashback, and so the assumption is that some Babel-style tower is also being built nearby. So we're left with an abrupt jump to an apparently unrelated, self-contained scene, instead of an analogy to the rest of the film. --Debonairchap 15:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Kino may be the best Region 1 version, but the definitive DVD edition has been put out by Eureka!/Masters of Cinema in R2 (UK). It is readily available for import and is worth hacking your DVD player to play all region discs. The Kino edition features many visual artifacts that are the result of a shoddy PAL to NTSC conversion; the Eureka! is PAL native and lacks those artifacts. For screenshots that show the PAL ghosting on the Kino, point yourself to the Metropolis DVD comparison at dvdbeaver.com. -- bandit, 21 February 2007. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.77.206.228 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Sound tracks

I for one would find it interesting to know what made up the soundtracks if it is known. For example I have a version that draws extensively from Joseph Haydn's "String Quartet in F Major".. but have no idea what version of the soundtrack it may be? of course this comment begs the question: does this information exist anywhere? 213.64.143.195 00:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC) patrick

[edit] Trivia moved from page

I moved the following trivia here:

because, first, it doesn't seem so much like trivia as interpretation. And second, because "is considered by many" is weaseley. If it is considered by someone who is notable, it should be attributed to that person and referenced, and then worked into another section, like Themes, maybe. Otherwise, it should be left here. -Smahoney 21:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

"There is also a subtle but definite aroma of anti-Semitism running through Metropolis. Rotwang, the mad scientist, is obviously intended to appear semitic in appearance to the German audience. He has dark hair, a prominent nose, and his home (which is ominous and dark) is festooned with the Star of David. Not only does he create the robot (which incites class hatred) he also kidnaps and tries to kill Maria, the Aryan heroine ... who is, of course, rescued in the pentultimate scene by Freder. Rotwang, the villain, is punished for his sins and falls to his death at the end of the film."

I'm afraid I must disagree with the following statements. 1) Rotwang is not a semitic name, nor does he have pronounced semitic features. He has grey hair rather than dark hair. 2) The star is the seal of Solomon and is more associated with alchemy than Jewish religion.

Rotwang's house is clearly described in the novel, is believed to have magical origins, being very old and said to have been built by a sorcerer. Rotwang merely moved into the house. Patrick R.W.A. R. 18:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

In the book the sorcerer is recorded to have mysteriously vanished, deepening the mystery about the house. Rotwang relates that he found the sourcer's skeletal body where he had become lost in a labrarynth of underground rooms and starved to death.--Saxophobia 22:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that the star in Rotwang's house is a five ponted pentagram, not I'm pretty sure that the star in Rotwang's house is a five ponted pentagram, not the star of david which is a six pointed hexagram. The pentagram is often used as a symbol of witchcraft and satanism, not Judaism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.194.178.251 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Themes

"There is also a subtle but definite aroma of anti-Semitism running through Metropolis. Rotwang, the mad scientist, is obviously intended to appear semitic in appearance to the German audience. He has dark hair, a prominent nose, and his home (which is ominous and dark) is festooned with the Star of David. Not only does he create the robot (which incites class hatred) he also kidnaps and tries to kill Maria, the Aryan heroine ... who is, of course, rescued in the pentultimate scene by Freder. Rotwang, the villain, is punished for his sins and falls to his death at the end of the film.

Rotwang's home is actually fitted with a pentagram which should be seen as being an icon of Pythagoreanism, an ancient Greek order under Pythagoras that beleived in geometry as opposed to religion. The Machine-Man he created was meant to save humans from the Machine-God Moloch which demanded sacrifice to continue working as witnessed by Freder upon his first visit to the Worker's City. Rotwang's punishment thus stemmed from him not controlling his invention, it was Joh Frederson who had ordered Rotwang to use the Machine-Man for the oppression of the workers."

1) The symbol in Rotwang's house is neither the Star of David, nor a pentagram. It is an inverted Pentagram.

[edit] Copyright/Public Domain

Does anyone know any more about the current copyright state of Metropolis worldwide? Zetetic Apparatchik 16:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone answer this? All the screenshots are currently tagged as copyrighted material. If the film is PD then so would be the screenshots. Rob T Firefly 23:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I was the first to state that the film was in the PD but I'm afraid its copyright has been restored, but not sure if it was enforced. See

http://www.copyright.gov/gatt.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000104---A000-.html BTW I'm not an expert ! Ericd 00:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status Withdrawn

A discussion has take place here about the continued GA status of this article. The reason for delisting is a lack of sources and that the article doesn't comply with WP:NPOV. Once these issues have been addressed/fixed please renominate for GA. This article claims the that Metropolis is the most influentual film ever, given this statement there should be a lot of sources available for citing statements in this article. Gnangarra 12:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1984

Is there any reason or evidence to suggest that the totalitarian setting of George Orwell's 1984 was in any way based on Lang's Metropolis? It is something I have always wondered. -ClemsonChuck

Though this is not impossible, I believe that the only work that Orwell acknowledged had any influence on 1984 was WE by Yevgeny Ivanovich Zamyatin. Stalinist Russia was the main inspiration for both works. Ron g 20:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no move. -- tariqabjotu 00:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Metropolis (film) → Metropolis (1927 film) … Rationale: Was moved from the latter to the former by a user who mistakenly thought there were no other movies by the title. The other is at Metropolis (2001 film). Recury 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support as nom. Recury 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is by far the more famous movie in English-speaking countries. The two are sufficiently disambiguated now, no need for a move. -- nae'blis 14:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nae'blis. Kafziel 15:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nae'blis, his disambig message suffices. --Groggy Dice 18:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Nae'blis. Atlant 23:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • support — per Recury. i think there are a few more than just the 1927 and 2001 films of that name. —ExplorerCDT 00:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

This is the more famous film, but the title as it is now strongly implies that this is the only film called that. For clarity's sake, it shoud be changed. Recury 14:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that I have added a disambiguation note at the top of the page to help clarify this. It should perhaps go to Metropolis (disambiguation) instead, but something should be here to clue readers into the possibility of other pages. -- nae'blis 14:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that was definitely needed and will help clarify, but I still don't think it is correct to use primary topic logic for the naming of this article, since the primary topic is really Metropolis and the two film articles are secondary topics. Recury 14:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) says to use (XXXX film), but it also says that when a film is well-known, disambiguation can be avoided. I'll wait to hear from more people, as you and I have different perspectives on this. :) -- nae'blis 15:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] Poster auction

  • On November 15, 2005, an original poster from 1927 (one of only four known in existence) was sold for a world record price of $690,000 by the Reel Poster Gallery in London. [1]

I've moved this from the article because, although I think it might warrant inclusion, I don't know where it could go. I wanted to get rid of the bullet points since prose is generally preferred. Recury 17:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two problems

Number one: I heard this movie is rated G... is it? And number two: how is it that there are spoken lines if it's a silent film? Janet6 21:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification, please!

There was some text in the article that read as follows:

The ultimate expression of technology in the entire film is the female robot built by Rotwang, referred to as the Maschinenmensch or "Machine Human" although it is often translated as "Machine Man" in the US version. In the original German version Rotwang's creation is a reconstruction of his dead lover, a woman called Hel (a reference to the Norse goddess Hel). Both Rotwang and Joh Fredersen were in love with her. She chose Fredersen and became Freder's mother, though she died in childbirth. Rotwang, insanely jealous and angry about her death, creates the Maschinenmensch Hel. In the US version, The Machine Man is merely a fully functioning automaton which can be programmed to perform a variety of human tasks, whilst its appearance can be synthesised to resemble any human being.

An anonymous editor changed it without comment to read (emphasis and strike-out added by me so you can see the change):

The ultimate expression of technology in the entire film is the female robot built by Rotwang, referred to as the Maschinenmensch or "Machine Human" although it is often translated as "Machine Man" in the US version. In the original German version Rotwang's creation is a reconstruction of his dead lover, a woman called Hel (a reference to the Norse goddess Hel). Both Rotwang and Joh Fredersen were in love with her. She chose Fredersen and became Freder's mother, though she died in childbirth. Rotwang, insanely jealous and angry about her death, creates the Maschinenmensch Hel. In the USgerman version, The Machine Man is merely a fully functioning automaton which can be programmed to perform a variety of human tasks, whilst its appearance can be synthesised to resemble any human being.

This didn't seem right to me, so I reverted the change, but I'm not sure which version is really correct. Or maybe the whole paragraph needs re-working.

Can anyone help shed light on this?

Atlant 14:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Also in the introduction is mentioned the budget was 7 million Reichsmark, while the infobox says 1.5 million. (German WP says 5 million, btw.) --213.155.224.232 15:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Close "Spoiler" tag

Since I haven't seen this film, I attempted to scroll down past the spoiler warning, but there does not appear to be any end to the spoiler section. Could someone who has seen the film edit the page to indicate where plot spoilers end? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cprincipe (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

I just added an endspoiler tag. Missy1234 16:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/e/t/Talk%7EMetropolis_%28film%29_771d.html"