Chapter 10: Metropolis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Cover Page The handle https://hdl.handle.net/1887/3134626 holds various files of this Leiden University dissertation. Author: Siglé, J.A. Title: From monsters to mediators: The evolution of the theme of altruism in early robotic science fiction texts Issue Date: 2021-01-28 Chapter 10: Metropolis Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) is a classic science fiction film, and in 1994 was voted by 324 film critics as the eighth best German film of all time (McGilligan 480). The original version of the film was lost, which “can be said to have been presented only at the Berlin premiere and possibly at the Ufa- Pavilion an Nollendorf-platz – for no more than ten weeks [in 1927]” (McGilligan 133). Over the course of eighty-three years, many reconstructions were made yet none of them would achieve the original 4,189 meter-long version of the film (McGilligan 131). It was only in 2008 that a complete negative was discovered in Argentina which subsequently was released as The Complete Metropolis (2010) (Wosk “Update” 1061). Unlike some of Fritz Lang’s previous films, Thea Von Harbou was fully credited for the screenplay, as the “screen credits make the point that the script is ‘based on a novel by Thea Von Harbou’” (McGilligan 109). Von Harbou’s novel was also translated into English in 1927. Given the close affiliation of Von Harbou and Lang personally and professionally, analyzing either the novel or film in isolation becomes difficult. As Patrick McGilligan points out, in his biography Fritz Lang: The Nature of the Beast (1997), a newspaper article published on July 4, 1924, described that the renowned director and his wife were on holiday where they worked “‘to finish the screenplay for their new film Metropolis’” (109). McGilligan explains: “July was three months before Lang went to America, and five months before he returned in December […] By then, Christmas of 1924, his hardworking wife had certainly completed the Metropolis scenario” (109). Lang’s goals for the film were so ambitious that the production company funding the project, Ufa, “never expected to turn a profit,” but rather “hoped that the colossal motion picture would recoup its investment and create an opening for future German films in America” (110). However, this hope was never realized. A major hinderance to the film’s success was its notoriously convoluted narrative. Before releasing the film to American audiences, Paramount commissioned Channing Pollock to reedit the film and change the plot entirely as means of making it more accessible (McGilligan 132). While the Pollock version contains a different plot altogether, Lang’s own version was also reedited a number of times in order to shorten the film’s unusually long running time, as 174 McGilligan describes “the film was dictatorially and carelessly slashed everywhere after its Berlin premiere” (133). Two prominent critics of the film included H. G. Wells and Luis Buñuel, a Parisian film director. Wells stated: “I have recently seen the silliest film. I do not believe it would be possible to make one sillier”, and went on to explain that the film contains “almost every possible foolishness, cliché, platitude, and muddlement about mechanical progress and progress in general, served up with a sauce of sentimentality” (qtd. in McGilligan 130). Buñuel described the film as a “technical perfection” but the narrative as “trivial, bombastic, [and] pedantic” (qtd in McGilligan 131). Not unlike R.U.R., it was the film’s ending that contributed largely to such negative reviews. The film ends with a handshake between Joh (the leader of Metropolis) and one of the workmen as a symbolic gesture of reconciliation between the industrialists and proletariat. However, as McGilligan explains: Critics then and later would seize on the handshake as one of the silly, or ‘Kitsch,’ elements of a film that failed to achieve intellectual depth. […] [Lang] often said in interviews that he had agonized over this particular ending, which, he always emphasized, was principally von Harbou’s contribution. […] Late in life, as he softened, the director began to equivocate. Maybe the ‘kitschy’ message was valid, after all. […] ‘I didn’t think in those days a social question could be solved with something as simple as the line: The mediator between brain (capital) and hand (working class) must be the heart,’ Lang was quoted in 1976, the last year of his life. ‘Yet today, when you speak with young people about what they miss in the computer-guided establishment, the answer is always, The heart! So, probably the scenarist, Mrs. Thea von Harbou, had foresight, and therefore was right and I was wrong.’ (127-8) It is important to recognize that the film was a collaborative effort between Lang and Von Harbou. Being an adaptation of Von Harbou’s novel, many scenes in the film were included without providing sufficient narratological context. The cinematic result therefore contains an impoverished narrative which fails to adequately explain certain characters’ motivations or transformations. While the film Metropolis is a collaborative effort, this dissertation is concerned with Von Harbou’s novel in order 175 to gain a better understanding as to why, in Lang’s words, she “had foresight” and “was right” about the “computer-guided establishment” missing a heart. The novel opens with an epigraph, also included in the film, containing a maxim that is reiterated throughout the narrative. The epigraph reads: This book is not of today or of the future. It tells of no place. It serves no cause, party or class. It has a moral which grows on the pillar of understanding: The mediator between brain and muscle must be the Heart. Thea Von Harbou (10) The narrative takes place in the futuristic city of Metropolis, where society is divided between the affluent who inhabit skyscrapers and the workers who inhabit subterranean factories. The city is overseen by Joh Fredersen. His son, Freder, falls in love with Maria who wishes to incite a peaceful revolution. Fearing a revolution, Joh Fredersen employs the help of a mad scientist called Rotwang. However, the two men have a history given that Joh’s deceased wife Hel (Freder’s mother) was originally with Rotwang. Hel left Rotwang to be with Joh, and Rotwang still begrudges Joh for stealing Hel away from him. Rotwang reveals his latest invention to Joh, namely a female robot which he intends to model after Hel. However, at the behest of Joh, Rotwang captures Maria and instead models the robot after Maria’s appearance. Given his grudge towards Joh, Rotwang secretly gives the robot ulterior motives. This robotic Maria incites a violent revolution among the workers, who then set out to destroy the city. In their rage, the mob destroys the heart machine, responsible for keeping Metropolis from being flooded. The mob fails to realize that their children, being underground, are at risk of drowning first. After escaping Rotwang, the real Maria rescues the children trapped underground. Once the angry mob realize that their own children are in danger, they turn on and burn robotic Maria at a stake (believing it to be the real Maria). After Maria has rescued the children, with Freder’s help, both end up fleeing to the cathedral where they find 176 Rotwang. Eventually, Maria nearly falls to her death, hanging on to a statue, while Freder and Rotwang fight on the cathedral’s rooftop. When the mob looks up, they see Maria and realize that they had been duped into revolution by a false prophet. Joh Fredersen rescues the real Maria, and Rotwang falls to his death. Afterwards, Joh Fredersen has learned his mistake of being a heartless industrialist, and now wishes to build a new Metropolis, one that has a heart that mediates between the head and the hands of the city. Von Harbou’s Metropolis depicts various moments of altruistic behaviors in conjunction with a broader concern for social cohesion and organization in the context of a technologically advanced civilization. What follows is a closer examination of the character of Joh Fredersen, the function of religious motifs, and finally the theme of altruism. While Freder appears to be the main protagonist, one should recognize that his character remains rather static throughout the narrative. By contrast, Joh’s character undergoes a more pertinent transformation. The theme and function of religion and magic in the narrative represent humanity’s (or society’s) struggle towards obtaining a collective identity rather than dealing with actual religious values. Although there is only a single robot in the narrative, it quickly becomes clear that the robot is intricately connected to every member of Metropolis, and stands in opposition to the entire society. Although the robot is the most iconic image from the film, the character of the robot actually plays a rather small role in the novel’s overall narrative. While Frankenstein managed to express group selection in evolutionary terms, Metropolis attempts to represent humanity as a complex adaptive system akin to a colony of ants. The narrative is very much concerned with the formation of group minds and social organization. Metropolis stands apart from other science fiction narratives examined in this dissertation in that it downplays the importance of the robot while emphasizing the importance of cooperation, altruism and group identity. 177 The Transformation of Joh The robot in Metropolis is born from competing intentions and undergoes three phases of development. Rotwang, who lost his beloved Hel to Joh, originally created the robot as an attempt to overcome his grief. Joh, on the other hand, employs the robot to prevent a revolution. Finally, the robot is employed by Rotwang to enact revenge on Joh. In other words, the robot is created as an object of desire, then becomes a tool or medium with which to sway public opinion, and eventually is employed as a weapon.