Jump to content

Talk:Metropolis (1927 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

older comments

".. 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)

The film is obviously pro fascism and anti-cap and acti-com

Not nazism, but fascism.

-G —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.231.139.30 (talk) 01:47, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

Date of release

While the article states that the film was released in 1927, I own a DVD release enititled "Fritz Lang's 1926 Classic: Metropolis". Does this highlight a mistake, or is it perhaps that the film was made in '26 but not released untill '27? John1701 23:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I own the new restored version (DVD). Here are some facts from the booklet:
* shot from may 22 1925 to october 30 1926
* premiere: january 10 1927 Berlin (Ufa-Palast am Zoo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.68.216.157 (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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)

Wasn't that Murnau's Nosferatu? He was able to borrow large amount for negligible debt due to hyperinflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.89.221.199 (talk) 04:37, 17 June 2009 (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)

Metropolis cost the equivalent of $204 million (in 2006 US dollars), which is only one-third as much as War and Peace, but still right up in the top ten most expensive movies ever made. See "list of most expensive movies ever made" on wikipedia.

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.

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)

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)

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)

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).

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

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) .

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.

Themes should also include the many Biblically influenced elements in METROPOLIS. Besides the Tower of Babel references, there would be many Old Testament influences which could be explored. For example, Maria and Freder both are similar to Moses interceding with Pharaoh to free the Jewish people from their work slavery.

The son Freder who intercedes with his father for the people might (very vaguely) be considered a kind of messiah interceding for the people before the deity. Perhaps Maria would be a female version of John the Baptist. comment added by Victorianezine (talk •

Can you provide a source which makes these comparisons? If not, then they should definitely not be added. See the Wikipedia policy on original research for the reason why... Wednesday Next (talk) 23:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Quote from one of the online articles on Christian religious imagery in this film"...The language of Metropolis -- the themes, the images, the characters -- are all rooted firmly in the language of Judeo-Christian theology." 'Crucified to the Machine - Religious Imagery in Fritz Lang's Metropolis' by David Michael Wharton January 3, 2005 http://www.strangehorizons.com/2003/20030106/metropolis.shtml Victorianezine (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Exodus Chapters 1-12. This tells about the oppressed Jewish slaves under the powerful Pharaoh. See also an article from Judaism in About.Com which summarizes this story. http://judaism.about.com/od/passover/a/pesach_story.htm

Genesis 11:1-9 tells of the Tower of Babel - with movie artwork strongly paralleling common pictures of this Tower. Popular 19th century Biblical Illustrator Gustave Dore's renditi on: http://cgfa.dotsrc.org/dore/p-dore5.htm, Victorianezine (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Given the controversial copyright/public-domain status of this film, it may be appropriate to give a full time line of the ownership, copyright and public domain status of all components of the film.

Ownership: UFA(1927), Nazi party (1942), DEFA(?), ? Public Domain in US: 1955-1995, 2022-

Were components of the film under different copyright law in Germany (or US)?

Did the film (or any component of the film) go into the public domain in Germany at any point?

If any component of the film is copyrighted or public domain separate from the film it would also be useful to track that information. Components including:

  • Screenplay.
  • Separate novel.
  • Original music.
  • Original sheet music/score.
  • Separate photos.

GodWasAnAlien 15:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
It is unlikely. The dystopian novel was known before Metropolis, and similarities between Metropolis and 1984 are superficial. Having said that, Orwell would probably have been familiar with the film to some extent, and it might thus have exerted some minor influence. 62.238.248.137 (talk) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (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)

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)

Survey

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

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.

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)

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)

I take it you are not very familiar with silent films (no offense)? Dialogue is presented in captions between shots.62.238.248.137 (talk) 15:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
This film is unrated (NR). The Motion Picture Rating System was established in 1968, 41 years after the release of this picture. By today's standards you might call it G, as there are no obscenities, nudity or blood. There are, however, explosions, guns, moments of intense scariness, scantly clad female-appearing robots doing lascivious dances, and intimations that capitalism is bad. As with most film ratings, it's pretty subjective. Horwendil (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:1metropolis.JPG

Image:1metropolis.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 23:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Where to download from?

Since this and many other films are in the public domain (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Public_domain_films ) it would be helpful to have information in the article about where they could be downloaded from.

Copyvio content deleted

I have deleted the following content because it is copied word for word from the source website (additional: I just noticed I had been logged out, so the deletion is attributed to an IP rather than my username). If someone wants to rewrite it and put it back, feel free. Bear in mind, however, that additional sources are necessarily regarding the claims made against Lang, including the suggestion of his being involved in a murder. WP:BLP may not apply since he's long dead, but such statements should be cited from a print source. deleted content begins here

Production and direction

Fritz Lang was infamous both on and off the film set. He was rumored to have been involved in the death of one of his wives, although nothing was ever proven. He was notoriously sadistic as a director. He supposedly did 20 or 30 takes of a scene where Fröhlich falls to his knees – by the time Lang was satisfied, Fröhlich's knees were bleeding. Lang forced the actors to work in the extensive "flood scenes" in the dead of winter on unheated sets. He insisted that Brigitte Helm, rather than an extra, wear the robot costume despite the fact that the actress's face would not be visible. Helm's dress caught fire when a take of the "witch burning" scene got out of hand.[2]

Brigitte Helm, the female lead who portrayed Maria, was a virtually unknown 19-year-old stage actress who did not consider film acting to be legitimate. Gustav Fröhlich, who played the hero Freder, was originally just another extra until the first "Freder" didn't work out. Extras, desperate for work, were paid next to nothing, as Germany's economy was in shambles in the years after World War I. The Metropolis production employed an unbelievable 26,000 men as extras, 11,000 women, and 950 children.[2]

The feel-good ending of the movie was the idea of Fritz Lang's wife. Lang favored an ending in which the newlywed Freder and Maria depart in a rocket ship for another planet. Lang admitted in his later years that his wife's version was better.[2] deleted content ends here 23skidoo 14:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Moved Political significance

I have moved the whole section to Talk , below, because it is entirely unsourced and appears like an essay and/or original research. The part about where the rumour originated, could possibly be rescued, with cites, and merged back in. Likewise the last paragraph. -Wikianon 05:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Political significance

Metropolis's theme is connected with both fascism and communism — the most powerful political ideologies of that time in Europe. The idea of the film is that the workers are oppressed, and their leader is Maria. In order to destroy the workers, Fredersen sends a robot who, disguised as Maria, leads the workers to destroy the dam and flood their homes. Many people see the film as being anti-capitalist and supportive toward communism, showing how the rich exploit the efforts of workers. This is supported by the fact that the rich live high above in a shining city while the working class lives in misery underground. Indeed, the viewer is led to believe that there is little to no chance for the workers to move up in society due to their wealthy oppressors. Others interpret this as an anti-communist message, claiming that the communists, by calling the workers to revolt are leading them to destruction. When led to revolt, the workers become savage and animalistic and almost destroy themselves and their children through their actions. Some see the film as a critique on both capitalism and communism, calling for a third option. Maria repeatedly claims that what the workers need is a Mediator. Some interpret this as a reference to the fascist concept of Corporate Statism, in which the ruling party acts as a mediator between the workers and the capitalists. Another interpretation is that the film is anti-capitalist in spirit, but ultimately rejects its complete overthrow, especially by a workers' revolution. It is possible that, consistent with Maria's evangelisitic role in the film, Metropolis advocates Christian Socialism as a median position between Capitalism and Communism, in which case the mediator's role is to ensure equal distribution of goods to the exploited and dehumanized Proletariat. Another interpretation is that the solution offered by the film is the adoption of humanism by the bourgeoisie.[citation needed]

There is a rumour that Metropolis was one of the favorite films of Adolf Hitler and he tried to get Fritz Lang to make propaganda films for him. Allegedly Hitler's interpretation of the film saw the oppressors, specifically Fredersen, as being Jewish. This rumour has its roots in a passage in Siegfried Kracauer's book From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film:

Joseph Goebbels, the head of the Nazi party's Ministry of Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda organization became interested in Metropolis, too. According to Lang, "… he told me that, many years before, he and the Führer had seen my picture Metropolis in a small town, and Hitler had said at that time that he wanted me to make Nazi pictures" (Kracauer 164).

However, if this rumor is true, it would mean that Hitler was unaware of, or chose to ignore, the fact that Lang was half Jewish. (In a recent documentary about the filmmaker's life, Lang apparently told Hitler his mother converted to Catholicism but was born a Jew. The Fuhrer apparently smirked at Lang, saying it is HE who decides who is Jewish and who is not.)[citation needed]

Most of Metropolis was filmed at UFA studios at Babelsberg Studios and was enormously expensive. Some sources put the total cost at four times the original budget. The official costs accumulated to 7 million mark (about 200 million dollars now). These cost overruns were a contributing factor in UFA's financial instability through the late 1920s and its subsequent appropriation by Nazi interests.

False conversion of Reichsmark to present Dollars

I'm strongly doubting about sentence: "...costing approximately 7 million Reichsmark (equivalent to around $200 millions 2005)." I think its false conversion to dollars (although this sentence is quoted from another site) and it overestimates the budget of film. The main reasons of doubting is that i found in german wikipedia that 1Reichsmark from 1926-1932 is equivalent to 3,32 Euros. Also i think that it's very unbelievable that Reichsmark after huge devaluation of Mark (1920-1924) could have such sort of value as in this conparision...i think it should be converted to about 17.5 mln dollar or just $20mln (maybe theres just too much of nulls in the quoted value).P.s.:sorry for my bad english:)Ausis 02:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

1 RM(1926) ^= 3,32 EUR (2000) (Note: this is a generous conversion. In 2004 the German Federal Bank estimated a conversion of 1 RM ^≈ 3.00 EUR [4])
1 EUR (2000) ^≈ 1,00 USD (2000)
1 USD (2000) ^≈ 1,20 USD (2007) (Consumer value diff., according to US Dollar)
So: 1 RM(1926) ^≈ 4 USD (2007)
and 7 mil RM ^≈ 28 mil USD (2007). If I'm not mistaken. -- megA (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
But then, the same source you name gives the salary of an Amtsgehilfe (office aide) as 125 RM per month. 125 × 3.32 = 415 EUR, or × 4 = 600 US-$ as a current month's salary does not make any sense to me, even for a trivial occupation. I question this source.
Also, according to Thomas Elsaesser, "Metropolis" (2000), p. 15, Metropolis took with 4.2 million Reichsmark half the production budget for UFA's 1925/26 season, and 22 other produced films took the other half. That's about 200,000 Reichsmark per feature film. By your calculation, a commercial feature film would have a today's budget of 800,000 US-$, which is hardly realistic.
On the other hand, 200,000,000 US-$ in fact seems way too high.
I'm removing the note. We don't even have a reliable figure for the actual budget, and the supposed conversion factors are all highly questionable. —Ebab 07:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Book of Exodus

There is a claim in the "Themes" section that Metropolis is "heavily based on the Book of Exodus, with Freder representing Moses and his father representing the Pharaoh of Egypt." Aside from some superficial details such as Freder's upbringing in upper-class society before identifying with the lower-class society and Joh Fredersen's use of "slaves" to build his empire, there isn't a lot that can be plugged into the Exodus formula. In all my years of watching and reading about Metropolis, nowhere have I come across a comparison to the Book of Exodus. I propose we delete this statement from the article unless someone can find and cite a source within the next day or so. --GHcool (talk) 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No response? OK, I'm deleting it. If there are any objections, feel free to respond here. --GHcool (talk) 17:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The movie does suggest the plight of the Jewish slaves under the thumb of the Pharaoh of Egypt. Freder the son partly parallels Moses (an adopted son of the Pharaoh). This EXODUS theme (the exploited people rescued by someone who intercedes with the Pharaoh) is partly shown in this film. Read the book of Exodus (available online) to test this statement.Victorianezine (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Video Game comparisons?

Why is there a discussion on the similarities between FF7 and Metropolis in this article? It reads like an essay for a Humanities class. Without a citation proving that is was really an influence, it is nothing more than opinion, and since there are many movies, books, and other media with similarities to Metropolis I don't see why FF7 should be talked about other than the fact that most Wikipidians are nerds with a hard-on for FF7 (no offense, myself included). I'm removing that part of the article, but I would suggest that it be moved to the FF7 article if it is necessary or interesting. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 03:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


I don't see why my edit was reverted. The section on a city in FF7 and how it is similar to the film is unnecessary, and incorrectly in the "Influence" section (unless someone actually has a source on this). I think it should be removed just as the person above me removed the Book of Exodus part. If there is any reason to keep it, please say so, because to me it looks obviously out of place and I will be taking it down again. 24.196.146.119 (talk) 04:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


Whoever wrote that should be ashamed of themselves. Take it down now. 69.221.194.209 (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


Lost footage rediscovered

I've added a section on the rediscovery of lost footage. Here's a link to the article: http://www.zeit.de/online/2008/27/metropolis-vorab-englisch I don't know the coding for footnotes, can someone add a reference for this article, please. Harry Mudd (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I might do that later on today/tomorrow. My main concern is this bit:

According to The Digital Bits, the 2009 Kino International DVD/Blu-Ray release will include all of the recovered Buenos Aires footage.

Having just received my copy of the ZEITmagazin and having seen the screenshots and having read parts of the article, I'd say it's highly dubious that restauration of the rediscovered bits will be finished in time for a 2009 DVD/BluRay release... Thus, I suggest removing that sentence until there is confirmation from the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau Foundation (the copyright holders). --afromme (talk) 20:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I concur, the Buenos Aires footage will require extensive cleaning and reworking to be usable in a new release, an undertaking that I've no doubt will take place, just maybe no quite as soon as that. The important thing is that it will, one day. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the movie is still not complete; "Around 20 to 25 minutes of footage that fleshes out secondary characters and sheds light on the plot would be added to the film pending restoration, he added. But around 5 minutes of the original were probably still missing, he said." Link: Lost footage of "Metropolis" surfaces in Argentina 80.202.38.38 (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be clarified within the article that it is yet unclear (and as Agamemnon2 noted, highly dubious) that the more complete 16MM Buenos Aires footage will be a part of the actual upcoming Blu-Ray release, rather than just an extra feature accessible through the menu. That effort would require, as others have mentioned, extensive restoration work. Not to mention an orchestral rescoring of the original film score in order to work in the context of the most recent DVD version released by Kino. But as someone mentioned, it is at least possible that this could occur in the future.--LTsereteli (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars

It's a known fact that the Machine-Woman in the film inspired C-3PO - George Lucas even says on the 2004 DVD release that he designed C-3PO as an intential male version of the Machine-Woman. Also, on the article for Revenge of the Sith, it mentions a comparison between Anakin and Doctor Rotwang, albeit unsourced. Should we include these in the article? 86.142.98.67 (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

No. 67.173.71.35 (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as long as these influences can be properly sourced, they should be added. I have seen the special feature on the DVD where Lucas states that C3PO was inspired by the Metropolis robot, so it should be added with details as to the name, etc. of the special feature. I am not familiar with the other comparison. Unless it can be sourced it should not be added. Wednesday Next (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Cultural Influence, my ass. The only things listed are comic books & sci-fi movies, that's trivia.69.221.194.209 (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Scenario 1: I read a book on a particular subject, written by an expert. I take information from this reliable source and insert it into the Wikipedia article on that subject, rewording it so as to not violate copyright. The information, therefore, has been perceived by me by reading the book, synopsized by me, rephrased by me, and inserted by me, with a reference. Anyone who wants to verify the information goes to the source, reads what's there, and checks it against what I have written.

Scenario 2: I watch a film on DVD. I take something that happened in the film and insert it into the Wikiepdia article on that film, describing it as accurately as I can. The information, therefore, has been perceived by me, described by me, and inserted by me, with a reference to the film it came from. Anyone who want to verify the information goes to the source, views what's in the film, and checks it against what I have written.

These scenarios are identical. Describing what occurs in a media artifact, such as a DVD, VHS, CD, LP or book is not original research, as it involves no more original work that the use of information from a reliable source. It is observation not "original research". There is no more reliable source for the contents of a media artifact than the media artifact itself. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 21:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Scenario 2 is what is called synthesis. You are not only creating a correlation or relation between your observation and the subject of the article, you are asserting notability, which is required for a listing under a "cultural influences" heading. WP:TRIVIA is very clear that all assertions in such a "cultural influences" or "popular culture" list require citation. Part of the reason for this is so that those things listed have been deemed notable by someone other than a random Wikipedia editor. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Nothing whatsoever was synthesized, which requires a combination of at least 2 things. I saw, I described, nothing more. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
By putting them here, you are asserting that they are notable. That is what is being "synthesized" by you. In order to show that they are indeed notable, we must have third-party references to those who did indeed "note" them. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Question of notability do not enter here - these are not articles, these are entries within an article. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 15:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all elements in a trivia list need to be both notable and citable. That is what makes them different from trivia which is simply to be deleted. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Re-read the "trivia" guidelines, please. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 15:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Read this. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

And I quote:

What this guideline is not

There are a number of pervasive misunderstandings about this guideline and the course of action it suggests:

*This guideline does not suggest removing trivia sections, or moving them to the talk page. If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

*This guideline does not suggest always avoiding lists in favor of prose. Some information is better presented in list format.

*This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies.

A guideline about style, not about content. Please stop. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 15:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Due to the nature of trivia section content in other publications (such as IMDb), it may be important to note that even when trivia sections are present in Wikipedia articles, their content must still be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia's other policies. Wikipedia article sections, including trivia sections, must not contain speculation, rumor, invented "facts", or libel. An item's degree of potential public interest will not excuse it from being subject to rules like verifiability, neutral point-of-view, or no original research (among others). Also remember that it is always best practice to cite sources when adding new facts to any section, which includes trivia sections."
Wednesday Next (talk) 15:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, so which of the items do you believe is speculation, rumor, invented fact or libel? If we agree, it canbe removed. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 15:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I request citations. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand that you would prefer citations -- it would be preferable if all of the facts on Wikipedia were backed by references, but of the umpteen gazillion facts in the encyclopedia, only a small percentage are supported by cites. In this case, citations are not required, as the items simply describe the contents of media artifacts and, as explained about, those artifacts are, in fact, the supporting citation. The only question, therefore, becomes one of accuracy. If you believe that one of the entires is inaccurate, speculative, based on rumor, an invention of the posting editor, libelous or in any other manner is not true and accurate, let's talk about it and if you are correct we can agree to remove it. In the meantime, the items are, in my view, quite reasonable and should continue to be present in the article, since removal of such items wholesale is not supported by policy or guidelines.

So, I ask again, which items are incorrect, libelous, etc. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 15:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

All I really want from you is for you to replace the citation needed tags and let other editors potentially supply citation. You act as if we are the only two editors of the article. Wednesday Next (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, we are certainly the only two discussing this now. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but tags on the statements will attract other editors to support them. I really never understand why a single editor gets so vested in his or her additions that he or she feels they must remove useful tags not directed at them but rather at the whole community of editors. Wednesday Next (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't take a personal affront at the tags; in fact, none of the items in the cultural influence list is mine. My issue is somewhat different, the proliferation of unnecessary disfiguring tags which make an article more difficult or confusing for the ordinary reader who's popped into Wikpedia to find something out. I don't mind "fact" tags, as long as they're justified by an editor's specific concern about the factuality of the item being tagged, but that doesn't seem to be the case here (that's why I keep asking you for specifics). Tagging items for the sake of doing so, which is what this appears to me to be, is just creating unnecessary annoyance for the reader for no good reason.

That's why I keep saying, if you've got specific doubts about specific items, let's talk about it, but please don't tag every item in a list simply because you don't like so-called "trivia" lists. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"(t / c) 17:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Who is the author of the poster image Image:Metropolisposter.jpg? Can it be tagged {{anonymous-EU}}? --Snek01 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I imagine, but don't know as a fact, that the poster was a work for hire, and therefore the copyright on it was held by UFA. Whether it can be slugged as out of copyright in the EU, I have no idea. It's used here under a Fair Use Rationale. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
(hmm, edit conflict, but I was going to say something along the same lines as Ed has said...)
I don't know, but it seems to me that the artist would not have necessarily retained the copyright of the work, as the film poster would have become the property of the film company. Therefore I think the anonymous tag would not be accurate. On the other hand, assuming this is true, who is to say that the film company renewed their copyright which most likely would have expired within the same time frame? If we aren't sure of the status it's better to leave as it is. It has a fair use rationale for this article which is more than satisfactory. Rossrs (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

White space

What's up with the html comment "spacing, please do not remove" after the lead? The white space is an eyesore, and I've never seen someone leave a note to point out that it shouldn't be removed. I'm not as familiar with WP:GTL and related policies as I used to be, but I don't think that the extra lines should be there. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It makes the article look unprofessional and like it needs a serious edit. Coutn me in on this. 86.139.64.126 (talk) 18:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Lang film poster fetches record, BBC news, November 15, 2005.
  2. ^ a b c "The Making of Metropolis". www.scifidimensions.com. Retrieved 2007-01-25.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metropolis_(1927_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1189273912"