Remakes/Reboots/Sequels That Need to Happen: Metropolis

Important Science Fiction Films Remakes/Reboots/Sequels That Need to be Made

Remakes/Reboots/Sequels That Need to Happen: Metropolis

June 9, 2019 2:41 pm

(Note: Make sure you see the fully restored version of Metropolis; there are still horribly truncated versions out there, some of which are of such poor quality and so shortened as to make the film literally unwatchable.)

I must say up front that I am astounded that Metropolis (1927, Fritz Lang) has not been remade. It has all the ingredients of a hit film or TV remake, science fiction tropes — including a mad scientist and an AI — romance, and high stakes intrigue, drama, and conflict. Most importantly, Metropolis has a radical and progressive revolutionary allegory.

Vitally, that latter element (“a radical and progressive revolutionary allegory”) must be the main point of a remake, otherwise it will be just another forgettable escapist sci-fi film/TV show headed straight for the dustbin of history. Add in that the original was bold in its radical vision of how capitalism dehumanizes everyone, master and slave (labor) alike and the imperative to measure up to the original becomes more stark.

In my view, the three most important and influential science fiction films ever are Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott), 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Stanley Kubrick) (for my thoughts on these two films, see my “Favorite Science Fiction Films” list) and this early science fiction film, the incredible and masterful Metropolis. Now, I will be the first one to admit that as visionary as this film is, it does have a thoroughly problematic ending moment (see below for more) and does lapse into an unfocused messiness in the later third of the film. However, the film is also audaciously ambitious and way ahead of its times in terms of its epic scope and deep exploration of the human condition. Of course, Metropolis is also famous for its incredible mise en scenes and compositions, the film being one of the most striking examples of German Expressionism.

A striking example of the expressionistic compositions in *Metropolis*, the exaggerated shapes and lines and setting, the extreme contrast in lighting and how these shapes, objects, lighting, patterns, and setting “express” meaning, especially the interior meaning of characters, here all elements making crusader and spiritual leader Maria the focal point for both the workers and us, making her a larger than life (mythical) character who is painted as a saintly patron and old wise soul and shining beacon who will lead the workers out of the darkness and into the light.

In terms of the film’s exploration of the human condition, the film is still very much relevant, especially in terms of its anti-capitalism focus, creating some of the most trenchant and exacting imagery of what capitalism is, more so than perhaps any film ever made. What this film reveals is the glaring, disturbing existential reality of the working class. That is, the opening sequences set up a binary of façade and what I will call (via the Lacanian concept) the “Real”: Through these stunning and incredibly disturbing images of the machinery and machine-like (working class) people (e.g., people turned into “machines”), Fritz Lang reveals a life of complete degradation. Opposite this way of (degraded/dehumanized) being, we get this incredibly beautiful city of Metropolis, where the elites live a luxurious, self-indulgent life of pleasure. More pointedly, Lang gives us a devastating allegory of façade and Real that resonates with the real world then and even more so today, e.g., this lap of luxury existence of the city elites – very much signifying the lap of luxury existence of real world elites then and now – hides an abominable hidden atrocity, oppressed (working class) people whose life is nothing but angst, fatigue and misery, not unlike what we see today with our own working class and “third world” peoples around the world. Moreover, that the machines and the abuses of the working class are located “elsewhere” — or more precisely below the elites — the privileged (upper) class can keep them out of sight, out of mind, which, in turn, allows the elites to not think about the consequences of a lifestyle that is contingent upon keeping the workers in misery, again, not unlike our lifestyles today, where our consumerist lifestyles (and the hedonist lifestyles of the rich and famous) are contingent on the suffering and misery of the working class/”third worlders” in our transnational globalized world.

This *mise en scene* signifies the men’s machine-like (disposable) way of being, the men marching as one, their heads all bent down as one, their same uniforms, the uniformity of their marching, the perfect symmetry of the mise en scene, the exaggerated enclosure of this tunnel composition all speaking to their oppressed state of being, and, of course, the bars also speaking to their oppressed existence, e.g., slave-like prisoners of a dead-end existence.

Contrasted to the dark, gloomy, deadening existence of the workers is the light, airy, frolicking existence of the elites. In this moment, we get a kind of twisted, hedonistic garden of Eden pleasure paradise, making this contrast all the more extreme and telling.

In this context, Freder embodies the elites of the city of Metropolis and when he sees Maria and the children of workers enter his heavenly “paradise,” he comes to represent what should be, class consciousness crashing his perfumed reality and the ensuing shame and guilt of what his reality is built on. As I suggest above, one of the things that is just SO remarkable about this film is that it also presciently predicts what is going on today. That is, what we see in Metropolis is almost a literal depiction of what is happening in the world today, in terms of a globalized “superclass” emerging at the expense of a working class all over the world, a working class that is literally becoming as destitute and disposable as the working class in this film.

The film also crystalizes the Marxist concept of alienation. That is, here too we see a perfect illustration of this concept of alienation, the workers’ very self getting determined not by them but by external forces beyond their control. The workers are literally shaped and molded by the external forces of Joh Fredersen/capitalism, becoming estranged, or “alienated,” from their own self, turned into “machines,” made disposable, never allowed self-determination or self-actualization, which, again, speaks to the plight of, well, all of us really, though the working class even more so.

Workers are turned into extensions of the machinery they work, punctuating how they are dehumanized — made disposable — not allowed to determine and actualize their selfs.

In a very striking moment, director Lang creates a deeply symbolic image of how the workers are literally slave labor and disposable, born to be consumed by a devouring capitalistic system.

(And that just scraps the surface of this remarkable and deep film! Here again I’ll do a full-blown analysis of Metropolis at some point in the future.)

Remaking Metropolis

To my mind, a remake of this seminal film is necessary for several reasons. First, most simply, the film is old, a 1927 relic that isn’t watched by most people. To add to that, some of the elements in 1927 weren’t done very well, especially the ending third of the film where the workers are a hysterical, mindless mass. The film is politically incorrect in other ways, such as “damseling” Maria the working class revolutionary leader and crusader. And, of course, the film needs updating in many other politically correct terms, such as, most importantly, creating a representation of a more diverse working class, e.g., women, people of color, LGTBQ people, etc.

Second, and most vitally, the film’s allegorical value is enormous, giving us a legible snapshot to a difficult to see reality. That is, as I suggest above, the film was prescient in collapsing spatial nation-state separation of the working class, creating a general elite/worker binary, which is especially much like we are seeing happening in the world today. Indeed, in his important work Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity, William I Robinson stresses this shift in capitalism, a shift from a nation-state capitalism to a globalized “transnational capitalism.” In this context the world’s elite have built their wealth and power on the backs of the world’s working class, prime material for a remake of Metropolis that depicts this real world reality allegorically via the metaphor that the original offers, though now becoming fodder for a remake that could add updated layers of sophistication, including, most crucially, making the workers a mix of diverse ethnicities, registering that nationalities no longer matter and that this binary that should be – a globalized working class united against elites – is a necessary future reality. In this critical context, a remake would pinpoint another vital distinction, that this isn’t just some general mass of wealthy elites but actually represents a transnational, globalized power structure, so critical to getting people to understand how our world is getting distinctly remade. Moreover, a remake should stress that the luxuries of the elite aren’t just a contrast in excess versus lack of what the workers are deprived of but actually what keeps the elites – and, really, what keeps mainstream folks in general – stimulated and distracted, their sources of (consumerist, materialistic) pleasure that which they don’t want to give up and so willfully remain ignorant of a working class who endure unspeakable miseries.

Third, a remake could better explore the other interesting elements in the original: the father-son dynamic could be another metaphor that could address what seems to be a monumental generational shift, from an older generation who still see wealth accumulation, material possessions, status and image markers, and power to be the fundamental goal in life to a younger generation who wants more out of life, pursuits that actually self-actualize the self, give them a deeper meaning and actual purpose in life. And a remake could revision the AI element, a remake giving us a much more complex AI, not just an evil monster who leads the workers astray, but a complicated creation that seems to do its master’s bidding but, instead, as the most sophisticated AI allegories do (for more on this important element in the best sci-fi texts, see my my “Favorite Science Fiction Films” post, where I discuss sci-fi films that use AIs and clones in deeply meaningful ways), begin to also determine its self via breaking free of its master’s will, another way of allegorically reflecting how this master/slave, subject/object, rich/poor, capitalist/laborer binary is not fixed and can be deconstructed.

One of the first representations of artificial intelligence, Robot Maria is essentially a simplistic force of chaos that does its job all too well.

Fourth, a remake would have to markedly improve on the lame ending of the original. The final moment in the film has the leader of the working class and Joh Fredersen unable to harmoniously shake hands. It takes Freder, the mediator or “heart,” to bring together the “hands” (the working class leader) and the “head” (Joh Fredersen) in a harmonious union. The last line screams out this contrived finale: “The mediator between head and hands must be the heart.” This ending moment is fraught with problems. First, this metaphor of “head” and “hands” is just so deeply troubling, since it suggests that the working class are too dumb to participate in leading, that all they are good for is to be “hands,” a way of saying that they can only be the utilitarian tool for capitalists to use for their labor needs, a disturbing social Darwinist conception. And, that, then gets to the other problem with this ending moment, the suggestion being that while the workers may get a better life, the status quo of a capitalistic structure will be sustained, with the working class still the working class and the elite/capitalist class maintaining its superior position above them.

Finally, and in conjunction with this latter point (that we need an ending that frees the workers from their bondage and become part of a collective “head” that runs society) a remake would teach us once again what it means to be the movers of history, making us realize that history is not already written but waiting to be written by not the elites but by everyday people (the working class) who enact their will to shape history in their (egalitarian) image.

Facebook Tweet Pin

4 Comments

Steven Lyle Jordan says:

June 9, 2019 at 5:05 pm

Couldn’t agree more on these points. Metropolis has also been one of my favorite movies since I first saw a (horribly-butchered) version in the 1970s, and discovered the wealth of additional material found in Thea Von Harbou’s original novel. Though I once created an illustrated version of Metropolis, with an idea to modernizing the look, I’ve never been able to create an updated story for Metropolis; there’s a lot to unpack in there, and it would be too easy to emphasize certain elements and completely lose track of others. But I think it’s a project worth pursuing.

Reply
- reagan@yourfilmprofessor.com says:
  
  June 10, 2019 at 1:29 pm
  
  Thanks Steven for your thoughtful sentiments! Like you, my first encounter with Metropolis was one of those “horribly-butchered” versions, so when I saw the restored version, I was just stunned by what I was watching, a pristine print that did justice to Lang’s incredible vision and artistry. I commend you for your attempt to create an “illustrated version of Metropolis, with an idea to modernize the look.” As you astutely say, it is a daunting project the film covers SO much ground (including in terms of its sublime compositions), my blog post only scratching the surface of its many complexities. Indeed, if it weren’t for the many factors I mention in my post (the sheer oldness of the film, the weaknesses), I wouldn’t promote a remake, since I suspect it may be almost impossible to recreate a film that almost magically came together in the way it did. (And, boy, do I not have faith in Hollywood to do justice to this vision!) Still, there are some visionary filmmakers out there that I DO have faith in (for one, Bong Joon-ho!), that could capture the sublimity of the original, so one can hope that lightning can indeed strike twice.
  
  Reply
Kim Nelson says:

July 23, 2021 at 10:03 pm

Metropolis is an amazing movie, especialliy in its newly restored format, and I could not agree more that a well done remake would be a fantastic project to be pursued. I believe it would be difficult to find an Actress as inspiring as Bridget Helm and an Actor like Gustav Frohlich. I see the film as an amazing piece of retro-futurism.
But to use the movie to promote some socialist agenda, would be a major mistake and have absolutely nothing to do with the original intent. Fritz Lang’s wife, Thea Von Harbou, who wrote the screen play, was anything but a socialist, Later she be came an admirer of Adolf Hitler, and Goebels himself is said to have admired the film for its promotion of Nazi values. This is also something which is not intended. There are many subplots in this movie which is what makes it so interesting: the relationship between father and son, between Freder and Maria, between Jon and Rotwang, and, of course the workers struggle in an inequal society. There is also a warning here that destroying society to promote change, also has its consequences. In its finest form, film is both art and entertainment. To use a film as propaganda to promote some socialist or gay rights agenda, would in ways, cheapen its value. Good film is timeless, but social causes seldom are.

Reply
- reagan@yourfilmprofessor.com says:
  
  August 5, 2021 at 3:42 pm
  
  First of all, thanks so much for the comment! I think we can definitely agree on one thing, “Metropolis is an amazing movie… that a well done remake would be a fantastic project to be pursued.” In terms of your secondary point, I’m not sure I can add much to what I’ve already written on the film, but I’ll try to further explicate my position. I don’t know if it means much that “Goebels himself is said to have admired the film for its promotion of Nazi values” or that Thea Von Harbou wrote the script of the film. In terms of the former, there are elements in the film that a fascist ideology might like, Freder very much being a god-like autocrat who rules with an iron fist. Indeed, in Siegfried Kracauer’s celebrated work From Hitler to Caligari, he suggests that German Expressionism and especially the German Expressionist film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari predicted the rise of Hitler and Nazism, the premise being that Caligari and other German Expressionist films reflected the autocratic sensibility in the German people, and I certainly think this to a certain degree applies to Metropolis. And I don’t doubt that Von Harbou got some of her anti-Semitic (and authoritarian) beliefs in the film; for one thing, some see Rotwang, the villain, as a Jew. But I would strongly argue that ultimately the film is Lang’s film and I think that comes through in the more progressive elements in the film.
  
  In terms of promoting a so-called “socialist agenda” or the curious idea that “social causes seldom are” “timeless,” I would strongly argue, and so have many, many other scholars that whatever Metropolis was intended to be, it is what it is, and that is at least in part a socialist film. Any film that pushes class consciousness and diagrams in the most stark terms what capitalism does to workers, can only be called a socialist film. More pointedly, as I say in my piece, I can’t think of any film that has so glaringly made it clear what capitalism is, a predatory, mercenary, put profit and power before people, survival of the fittest economic system/ideology, turning human beings into the machines they run, turning them into (see them as) disposable bodies. I’ve studied and taught capitalism for over 20 years and I can tell you that no other film captures the inhumane treatment of the working class as well as Metropolis. Indeed, in this country and the world, Lang’s film perfectly captures the dehumanization of the working class in this country and certainly the world. In this context, I would strongly argue that the only difference I’m proposing for a remake and the original is to see the original’s vision of a socialist movement to the end, e.g., instead of keeping the working class under the yoke of an authoritarian capitalist (Freder), continuing to make them “hands” or “tools” of the capitalist (authoritarian) state, instead of that, to actually make them equal and give them their agentic humanity back. And let me just also stress, socialism is not communism, it still has certain aspects of capitalism (private property, profit margins, etc.) but, among other things, it ends a hierarchy of class, ends the privilege and power – and the extreme exploitation that comes with that – of an upper class and gives true equality to the working/lower class. I can’t imagine who would object to that change in our way of being!
  
  One final point: I would highly dispute this contention: “Good film is timeless, but social causes seldom are.” I must admit that got a jaw drop from me! I can’t imagine anyone saying that our most important historical “social causes” – civil and human rights for African Americans, equal rights for women, sovereign rights for indigenous peoples, working class rights, child labor protections, anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism rights for “third world” Others, innate human rights protections and freedoms, environmental protections, etc., etc. — are not “timeless” and vital for our collective need to progress humanity to a better, more humane place. And, indeed, I would also strongly argue that some of our most important films are social issue films, too many to name here but among these important films I would include, yes, Metropolis but also films on racism/white supremacy (Roots, 12 Years a Slave, To Kill a Mockingbird, In the Heat of the Night, etc.); films on the struggles of the working class (The Grapes of Wrath, Norma Rae, On the Waterfront, Modern Times, etc.); films on women’s rights (The Piano, Thelma & Louise, Whale Rider, etc.), anti-consumerist/greed/anti-capitalist/anti-poverty films (It’s a Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, Parasite, Bicycle Thieves, etc.); anti-war (Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, Apocalypse Now, etc.); and, well, you get the idea; and this literally is the tip of the iceberg for “social issue” films!
  
  Reply