Metropolis sets the tone for 20th C scifi

Well, I just saw it on the big screen (The Screening Room on Varick in NY), and it was fascinating. First the effects were equal to many of those you see in todays movies BUT this one was made in 1927! The elements of the opening shot- the airplanes, bridges and cars are completely integrated into one scene. I dont know that much about filmmaking, but the effected elements and the "real" elements were seamless as far as my eye could tell. Probably requires some serious splicing or something...

Anyway, the effects continue to amaze throughout the picture. They are well complemented by monumental sets and an amazing score. If you havent seen it, you'll find yourself saying "Thats in Star Wars!" every five minutes, and clearly this is the precursor not only to Star Wars but also to Brazil, City of the Lost Children, Hudsucker Proxy and any of the other corporo-future films (thats a made up word by the way) you see these days.

I wonder how it was received in 1927 because the narrative elements are much more complex than today's general audience would care for. Certainly not complicated, but defined more symbolically than in a present day talkie (remember this ones a silent film). Were 20's crowds really this sophisticated?

Signs of enormous filmmaking effort are everywhere in Metropolis. Huge flood scenes, complex crowd scenes and the integration of amazing effects. In terms of work, this is the 20's equivalent of many of the Hollywood blockbusters out today. In terms of narrative quality, it's poetic.

I saw the film for the first time years ago on a grainy video. I must see the theatrical version. I agree it was a visionary piece of Sci-Fi filmmaking and was very impressed with Fritz Lang's directing. I also highly recommend George Lucas "THX-1138" it is an amazing piece of work

Lucas' film is definitely influenced by Metropolis. The very premise of underground societies and those who control them from above is very Metropolis. But Lucas has never hidden this fact. Both are great films.

In this new century 2001 or 2002, I feel that 2001: A Space Odyssey by Stanley Kubrick remains that standard by which this century's movies can be held to with its serious intentions and adherence to realistic portrayals that the audience will accept as real, except for the outdated Bell Phone logo. I'm still waiting for any movie to realize that you can't hear rocket motors outside in space (where's the imaginary music?).

The special restored version of METROPOLIS hasn’t reached my part of the country yet, but I am anxiously awaiting it. I have seen a number other versions. I guess my favorite to date is the 1984 Moroder re-release with the contemporary rock music score and the tinting. That one was only about 90 minutes long. It will be good to see the more complete restoration.

I agree that Kubrick’s 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY has become the standard by which to judge science fiction. However, METROPOLIS was clearly ahead of its time. And it was another Kubrick film, DR. STRANGELOVE; or HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB that has direct antecedents in METROPOLIS. Peter Sellers’ characterization of Dr. Strangelove is a direct homage (down to the glove on his hand) to Rudolf Kleine-Rogge’s Rotwang in Fritz Lang’s film.

I didnt catch the Strangelove reference, but that seems right now that you mention it. Two great movies.

In the 84 release who provided the soundtrack and what was the tinting all about?

I felt Kubrick all but ignored the directed evolution themes, in favor of visual and emotional manipulation. Like many of Kubrick's films it was engrossing but ultimately unsatisfying. Clarke's book was less vague about certain elements. "Dr Strangelove" is perhaps the most overrated film of all time. Some of the performances are certainly terrific but after you have seen the film once, it's novelty wears off and it becomes the longest Saturday Night Live skit ever.

The 1984 release with tinting was produced by composer Giorgio Moroder (FLASHDANCE). The film was widely screened in commercial art houses in the U.S., and then made available on VHS. The soundtrack included vocals performed by contemporary rock stars, including Pat Benatar, Freddie Mercury of Queen, Loverboy, and Adam Ant. I am not particularly a fan of any of those artists, but as a soundtrack for this film, it worked for me. Portions of the film were tinted, presumably according to original director's notes [I'm not real sure on this.]. The tints were the same for the entire frame in those sections. The VHS was released by Vestron Video, and I believe is now out of print. Of course, there is always eBay.

A very 80's Metropolis! I can see Benatar and Freddy Mercury involved in that. Was it a wider release than the one we are seeing for Metropolis now? Very cool.

Steveseitz's Strangelove comments:
I think Strangelove had some strong political undercurrents at the time of its release ("how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb); the longevity of the humor may not have been its primary initiative. Might be something there for us in todays political climate. But to be honest I still laugh every time I see it, especially the scenes with the good doctor battling his hand.

Maybe the FilmForum people will Kubrick as a major topic. I appreciate and respect the views expressed by Steveseitz concerning Kubrick, 2001, and DR. STRANGELOVE. I just don’t agree at all.

I find Kubrick’s films to be highly stimulating, full of countless ramifications, and well worth revisiting. I recently screened DR. STRANGELOVE for a large group here on the Oregon coast. Most had seen it before. A few had not. But there was a lively exchange following the film.

As for 2001, I also read the original story (I believe it was called THE SENTINEL.). It was really, I think, just a point of departure. For me, the film elevated Clarke’s story (Kubrick and Clarke did collaborate on the script.).

I find both of these films, and Kubrick’s films in general, to be very rich and very satisfying (but satisfying only in the sense that they stimulate many ideas and associations). I can go back even to the earlier Kubrick films, like PATHS OF GLORY, for example, and still find powerful, powerful scenes. The scene at the end where the German girl sings for the French soldiers is certainly one of those.

I view it as a strength that there are multitudes of possiblities that are not tied down. The vagueness Steveseitz mentions is actually a strength for me.

What 2001 did was establish for the first time the absolute technical quality of sci fi, it wasn't phony or fake, this was serious stuff that actually might be real one day, it wasn't a space opera with heros and swash-buckling handsome cowboys. The quality of 2001 I don't believe has been surpassed by any sci fi film. Admittedly, from a movie standpoint, action, pacing, it doesn't conform to today's need for action, adventure, and dazzling special effects for special effects sake.

I believe realistic quality, the breathing, the music instead of fake rocket sound (silent in space). There was realistic apes scenes. There were cutting edge sci fact in as much as possible in 2001. This movie set the standard for future sci fi movies as to integrity and commitment to realism.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by docraven
Maybe the FilmForum people will Kubrick as a major topic.

---

Do you mean at FilmWurld? If so, good idea. 2001, Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket, Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon etc....
Sounds great. Next week perhaps, after the Ang Lee section?
P

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pmw


Do you mean at FilmWurld?

---

Yes! Not only did I use the wrong name, it was a terrible sentence with one word left out. Anyway, there does seem to be considerable interest in Kubrick.

One of my favorite films is "The Killing", but I just get so tired of the lavish praise for what I see as excellent but not truly classic films (2001, Dr. Strangelove).

"A Clockwork Orange", one of his most impressive films was quite controversial considering the era in which it was released. "Lolita" raised eyebrows. But the recurring flaw was Kubrick's own cynical sensibility that was invariably foisted upon the audience.

"Barry Lyndon" was hollow filmmaking...a yawner. "The Shining" was roundly criticized by Stephen King fans as well as Kubrick admirers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by stevetseitz
One of my favorite films is "The Killing", but I just get so tired of the lavish praise for what I see as excellent but not truly classic films (2001, Dr. Strangelove).

---

I see your point and agree that some of the Kubrick films are disappointments —BARRY LYNDON and THE SHINING being cases in point. I just don't agree that this applies to DR. STRANGELOVE and 2001. Perhaps we can explore this further when Kubrick becomes a topic on FilmWurld—presumeably in the next week or so.