Arch 443/646: Architecture and Film
Fall 2006

Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, Man with a Movie Camera, Metropolis

Please answer the questions below. Use paragraph form. Your answer should be around 400 words. Email me your responses in Word .doc format to: tboake@sympatico.ca I will be posting these each week after the class. You should be prepared to deliver your answer in class -- but paraphrase, do not read it.

Man with Movie Camera was shown not for its "dystopia and fear value", but to begin to give you a benchmark for the technical changes in the making of films during this period.

1. Mariana DeCola

Question: If The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is set in a "frame", where the beginning and end of the film are to represent a sane world, how does or does this not work with the expressionist setting used in the film?

2. Joel DiGiacomo

Question: How does the musical soundtrack in Caligari (abeit quiet behind the narration), Man with a Movie Camera and the 1927 and 2001 versions of Metropolis, affect the general feeling of the plot or story?

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
This music in this film, composed by Giuseppe Becce is characteristic of late nineteenth, early twentieth century orchestrations. Grandiose, exaggerated, of late-romantic, wagneresque influence, it operates much the same way opera music enhances stage performances. Because this is a silent film, the music is essential to the feel of the plot conveying everything from the bussle and excitement of the fair, the apparent stability and calm of the protagonist when are we are first introduced to him within his story, and a general sense of imminent threat throughout.

Metropolis (1927)
Soundtrack by Gottfried Huppertz. The idead for the music in this movie is much the same as in Caligari.

Metropolis (2001)
Much of the music in this film is jazzy, 1920's-30's music, a time when people still believed in the attainability of grand utopian visions for society, either communistic, democratic, or other. This was also the time that produced Huxley's Brave New World, a dystopic novel, depicting a bleak version of a future totalitarian society, warning us of possible consequences these visions could lead to. In Metropolis, jazz is juxtaposed with a distopic vision of the future, creating interesting cross-references. Reminds me of Batman's Gotham City.

Man with a movie camera
Because the movie has no plot, the music merely serves to compliment, and amplify the fast-paced, over-stimulating sense the movie is conveying. "The film has an unabashedly art film bent and emphasizes that film can go anywhere." (wikipedia) The film is a montage, and in many ways, so is the music. Many composers have offered their interpretations of it: "The film, originally released in 1929, was silent, and accompanied in theaters with live music. It has since been released a number of times with different soundtracks" (wikipedia) Most of the comments posted on the Amazon website point to the effectiveness of the new modern score, helping to emphasize and enhance this dynamic, modern, forward-looking film.

3. Collin Gardner

Question: Compare the general atmosphere of Caligari with 1927 Metropolis as is reflected in the nature of the sets used in both films. Does one succeed in being more dystopic or fearful than the other? Why do you think this is so?

4. Suzanne Gibson

Question: Compare the use of "special effects" in Caligari and Man with a Movie Camera. How do these alter the ability to focus the viewer on aspects of each film?

Special effects in cinematography allow the audience to transcend the limitation of time and space, the way an audience views a film is altered by the choices the film maker makes in determining the type and use of special effects. Two opposing approaches can be seen in the films The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and Man With a Movie Camera, in the first of these films, the filmmaker relies on the physical elements of the film. The special effects in this film focus the viewer on the story and the way the story is being told. In the film Man With a Movie Camera, the film maker is not interested in telling a story with a plot, but rather he is interested in elevating the art of cinematographic filming techniques while documenting daily life and activities. In this example editing acts as the primary special effects, and is used to bring the audience attention to the art of film.

In the film, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, sets are an important aspect of the special effects that focus the viewer on the story being told. The sets are angular, disoriented and suggest as sense of delirium. The construction of the sets limits the camera movement to one location; the audience is visually kept focused by the frequent changes in the sets. Each set acts as a bookmark that is revisited again and again throughout the movie this triggers the audience’s memory as the dots of the story are connected. Another important aspect of this film is the special effects used in changing scenes. The set change occurs just prior to the iris focusing in on a key component crucial to the understanding of the plot, for instance an exaggerated expression that tells the audience there is more to the story than being told. The iris then fades out and the audience arrives at another scene, creating a forward motion that advances the plot. Other special effects include exaggerated lighting of the sets. All shadows and light are painted directly onto the sets, and light spots coupled with the camera angle frame the view and focus the viewer attention to where the story is taking place.

Man with a Movie Camera, takes a different approach and relies little on the physical special effects as seen in Caligari, rather the film maker is interested in manipulating the existing reality of everyday life and depends heavily on filming techniques and editing to hold the audiences attention to the art of film making. Some of the special effects include wild juxtapositions, for instance the blinking eye matching the shutter of the camera lens, multiple exposures that mash different scenes, the mechanics of the machine and the workers who are working the machine, camera speed, image splicing that stitches together various images to create montages. The camera revels a variety of high and low compositions and stunning taboo imagery, marriage and divorce, life and death are all manipulated with the above mentioned techniques to combine the mundane and everyday, with life’s ultimate climaxes. Other special effects that are used to hold the viewer’s attention are everyday images which are taken from angles that we are incapable of seeing, such as close up explosions in mines far below the earth’s surface. This film forces the viewer to acknowledge the reconstruction of reality and wows the audience with the manipulation of images; the special effects alter the focus of the viewer from everyday images to the art of cinematography.

Both these films liberate the audience from the regular limitation of time and space, using two very different approaches. On relies on the use of set design and iris fade ins, while the other depends more heavily on a complex editing and manipulation. Both approaches are effective in achieving the filmmaker’s objective.

5. Vera Guo

Question: Caligari, Man with a Movie Camera and 1927 Metropolis all place women in differing social roles in the film. How does this (or not) feed into any feelings of fear/propriety and the place of women in the films?

Both The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari and the 1927 Metropolis place the female character in stereotypical roles where as Man with a Movie Camera does not. In Man with a Movie Camera, female characters are seen in everyday activities and events equally to the scenes where men are in. The women are shown working in both factories and doing household chores. Although the role of the more delicate work of editing the movie is given to a woman while a male does the actual shooting of the movie, it is submissive compared to Jane from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari where she is the stereotypical damsel in distress. We are introduced to her from the beginning yet we are not told much about her besides that she is the object of Francis’ desires. She resembles a main character yet she really does not play a significant role, like all traditional passive females in film. She is merely a subject matter. We do not get to know who she is or what she is thinking; her presence is ambiguous. Jane is present for the purpose to be kidnapped and the lead male to save her.

This inactive female role is contrasted with the character Maria from the 1927 Metropolis in which both Maria and robot Maria dominate. In Fritz Lang's Metropolis, Maria is the modern day heroine while robot Maria depicts the evil seductress.

The beginning of the movie shows Freder with females much like the passive Jane. He is then introduced to the Maria and he is instantly in love with her leadership to the children. It is this choice of Maria over the other female objects that leads to the next extreme in female roles from passive Jane to extreme powerful robot Maria. The role in which sprang from the male obsession to control women and at the same time be controlled. Robot Maria has the strength like a male, yet manipulates with a womanly softness. These three movies depict females in a full spectrum from the extreme damsel in distress, the everyday woman, and the she-devil.

6. John Lee

Question: Man with a Movie Camera uses "live sets" and actual urban spaces. How might the use of actual vs. constructed sets have affected Caligari and 1927 Metropolis? Do you think the portrayal of the atmosphere would have been more or less successful? Why?

Both films rely on their sets for their surreal atmospheres. in Caligari, the artificial set is successful because the they are consistent with the film's theatrical presentation - stylized and exaggerated sets serve as visual aids for the viewer, compensating for the lack of dialogue and colour. For example, the markings on the sets provide clues for the viewer or foreshadow events, or the stark contrast between Jane's room and the harshness of the rest of the set. Actual sets would be far less effective for they would be without the designed subtleties of a constructed set.

However, in Metropolis (1927 version), the sets of the city feel artificial because they aren't exaggerated enough to intensify contrasts or believably futuristic. The atmosphere always feels empty, like a set, instead of crowded, like a real city. The film suggests that the city, Metropolis, is busy, bustling, crowded, and futuristic, but the sets don't necessarily convey this, whereas Man with a Movie Camera captures and magnifies the chaos of Odessa in the early 20 th century. A live set or actual urban space, adapted for the period of Metropolis, may have more effectively portrayed a booming futuristic “Metropolis”; however, the anachronism would be an issue. The sets for the machinery in the subterranean city have the opposite problem – the large, grandiose sets for the machinery could perhaps be better illustrated by the sheer vastness and scale of a modern factory of the era, for the machinery depicted by Lang is not terribly futuristic, nor does it have to be.

That said, it is difficult to imagine the movie with live sets, especially in the subterranean sequences, for the film is too surreal and dreamy. The notion of a giant, constructed, artificial environment contributes to this surreality, whereas a live set, even if it was more effective, would not. Ultimately, both films would be less successful without their artificial sets for the mood of the film would change dramatically. It is the cinematographers' manipulations of the live sets in Man with a Movie Camera that gives that film its dreamlike quality, not the sets themselves, and it is for this reason that the artificial set should be used - . Indeed, towards the end of Metropolis, Lang combines his over-the-top sets with stunning camera effects and cutting to stress this surreality.

7. Nu-Ri Lee

Question: Comment on the use of face make-up in Caligari and 1927 Metropolis in enhancing the plot of the film. Talk about the historic use of make-up in theatre that this references.

In silent films, where the relationship between the characters and the audience are not communicated through auditory medium, the visual medium becomes the key to the understanding of the film. The visuals that the movies, Caligari and the 1927 Metropolis entail are the characters’ gestures, costume and make-up in order to enhance the plot of the film. In Caligari, the film brings out the German Expressionism as its background and creates this dark bizarre distorted and angled world where the characters blend into the film’s setting with their snow white faces and charcoal-drawn dark make-up. The makeup of the characters are drawn so well to the setting that the audience is not bothered by the scene’s surrealist background and can concentrate on the plot that is going on in the film.

The distinction of make-up of the characters is apparent in both films in defining their role in the film’s plot. In Metroloplis 1927, the makeup defined the characters identity, meaning in which of the social that they belong to, either the underground workers or the above ground thinkers. The underground workers had more of a darker makeup to create a mood of sorrow, anger and frustration of their exhausting working condition where as the above ground characters had a more paler/whiter make up on to essentially create the mood of the proper, fast pace nuisance of the Metrpolis itself. The different make-up is more apparent to us when Freder, the thinker’s son, trades places with an underground worker. Within the change of frame, Freder’s make-up went from a softer to a rougher and darker tone when the film frame shows Freder exhausted from working the clock machine. In Caligari, the nature of the characters is defined through make-up as well as a state of mind. For example, Cesare has a more strange makeup (darker and bigger circles around the eyes, longer eyelashes) than the other characters of the film foreshadowing its unsettling existence where eventually the audience learns that he is the serial killer that is controlled by Dr. Caligari, or at least inside the story of Francis.

The make-up on certain characters is exaggerated in both films with darker and thicker outlines around the eyes indicating that the characters are evil, but also it let’s the audience define actual character and its doppelganger. Both films entails for one character to play personas: Dr. Caligari, the somnambulist vs. Dr. Caligari, the head doctor of the insane asylum and Maria as the innocent workers conscience vs. Maria as the evil Man-Machine. Therefore the use of make-up is an essential element the film that cannot just be taken lightly. The films today still uses make-up to build moods, set settings, foreshadow plots and even scares the audience thereby enhancing the plot and understanding of the film.

8. Michael Lin

Question: Compare the nature of the scale models and sets in Caligari and 1927 Metropolis. How did this affect the creation of the sets in the film and the use or not of larger urban spaces in the plot?

The set models in Caligari are made on a fairly intimate scale which lends to the claustrophobic and disorienting manner in which they are designed. The exterior of the buildings seem very small with its tilting roofs, slanted walls and barely large enough doorways. The interiors are distorted and twisted so as to seem confined and uncomfortable. For example, both Caligari’s hut and tent are quite small spaces to begin with but the oppressive feeling is heightened by its angular windows and leaning walls. The urban spaces, landscapes, and sceneries shown are equally contorted and alien.

The director of Caligari, Robert Wiene asked members of the Der Sturm Group for the décor of the film sets. These wild sets are influenced by Expressionism and Cubism, all of which (except the garden scene at the beginning and end) are artificial ones. The scales of the sets, being fairly intimate, seem to lend themselves as artworks or paintings in the backdrop. They set the artistic tone as well as the mood throughout the movie. The irregular shapes and scales of the surroundings create a sense of confinement and an incessant feeling of uneasiness. This helps to reinforce the twist ending where one finds out the whole story happened in Francis’ deranged head.

In 1927 Metropolis, the depiction of the city through models is on a rather grand scale. From the bowels of the city where the workers tire through their never ending shifts to the Club of the Sons where privileged youth frolic about, humans are dominated by the size of the buildings and the spaces. The futuristic city of Metropolis is littered with high-rises and bridges, and is animated by endless streams of people, planes, and vehicles which appear as insects amidst the towering structures. The largeness of the sets emphasizes the insignificance of the individual, especially the worker. The scale also contributes to the delirium of the city.

The workers bound by the massive machines, constantly slaving over them to ensure the functioning of the metropolis, the cavernous catacombs, the city square, and the large ballrooms and festivities of the metropolitan night life in the Yoshiwara District all generate a sense of activity in this big city. In a sense, the scale of the sets in 1927 Metropolis creates a different kind of disorientation, mainly through the way the buildings dwarf the general population and thus in their minuteness, all the commotion and confusion seem heightened.

Whether it is the oppressive slanting shapes or the awe inducing grandeur of the city, the scale of the sets, among other elements, in Caligari and 1927 Metropolis seem to intensify the feeling of dystopia and enforce the drama in the movies.

9. Veronica Lorenzo-Luaces Pico

Question: Connect and compare the notion/portrayal of insanity, between the players and architecture with reference to Caligari and 1927 Metropolis.

The idea of insanity is portrayed through the characters and through the architecture in the different films.

For the first movie (The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari 1920), the architecture in the film can be considered sane at the very beginning, and then it changes to something that looks almost like a painting for most of the film. When this change happens, the viewer is disturbed for some time, but then he or she becomes accustomed to it, and it seems normal again. At the end of the movie we realize that the character that has so beautifully told us everything that we know up until now is in fact insane. This is when the architecture in the background returns to the previews state, and we question what we know, and at the same time reflect on what know feels like a strange feeling of commodity and easy while we were insane along with the narrator.

For the second movie that we watched (Metropolis 1927), we are introduced to a world that is extremely similar to any of the big congested cities we know today. We learn through the movie that Maria, the character that was holding this whole world under control goes insane one day. She shifts from the character who is under control to an incontrollable one. Then we reflect on the ease of this change and realize that there is a very thin line between sanity and insanity. Having viewed the film about Caligari before this one, we can’t help but question the veracity of this society we have created. Maybe Metropolis is too, nothing more than a mad man’s creation. Maybe that is what our cities are, and their image has been playing in our brains for so long that it seems normal.

10. Arjun Mani

Question: Caligari, 1927 Metropolis and 2001 Metropolis all have significant focus on robotic roles in the film (including Cesare for Caligari in this view). The 2001 Metropolis is making reference to the more historic film. But given the historic timeframe of the earlier films, why do you think that the idea of the robot was so important? How are the robots used to speak to the idea of a dystopic social system?

In the time of Caligari and Metropolis, much of the world was already quite immersed in the age of the machine. New advancements in technology had allowed unimaginable potential for growth, and this in turn served to stir up man’s insatiable desire for power at all expense. As in Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, where a man seeks to transcend the primal order of nature and challenge the notion of god through science, so do Dr. Caligari and Joh Fredersen seek power. Initially the three find success, but are inevitably struck down by the repercussions of their actions in an end of fitting irony.

Caligari, in the tormented mind of Francis, is a man gone mad with the desire to control the human mind. It is peculiarly fitting that he is in a position of utmost authority on the subject. His control over the somnambulist, Cesare, is a power that is conventionally attributed to god, but his madness and evil which are manifested through the actions of his puppet make Caligari the source of chaos. Cesare, although innocent, is a means to this chaos. But just as Cesare is a slave to Caligari‘s will, Caligari is a slave to the evil he perpetuates, and in a way a slave to Cesare himself.

Frederson, although building his city to the heavens, is an architect of dystopia in the world below. Through his ambition he has nourished hatred and suffering amongst those that have toiled to realize his dream. In this world, the machine controls the man (worker)--in a primitive and brutal mechanical hell, the worker is consumed by the very technology that supports the life of the city. When revolt is in the making, Frederson calls upon the help of his nemesis Rotwang to silence it, but Rotwang’s spiteful regard for Frederson leads him to attack his legacy. The Machine Man is unleashed upon the credulous workers, and through cunning and deception brings chaos to Frederson’s ‘utopia’.

In this case, however, it is not Rotwang that has brought down the city, but Frederson’s own uncapped ambition. The machines nourished with the blood and sweat of men, are his means to power. The dependence leaves him at the mercy of technology, and once this technology is turned against him, he and the city are helpless. What follows is a purging fire that exposes the faults of his perfect world are reveals the dystopia it has become.

11. Darcy McNinch

Question: The 2001 version of Metropolis makes a key change in the expansion of the workers (all fairly programmed humans in 1927), to include a clash between humans and actual robots in 2001. How does this change the focus of the film? How does it affect our reading of the social dystopia?

In Fritz Lang’s Metropolis the people are split into two distinct groups and the city into two distinct regions: the rich capitalists, like the Fredersons, who run the city from above, and the workers that run the city below ground. They are all humans and the lower class wants to be treated more equally.

In Osamu Tezuka's Metropolis on the other hand the city has many levels and many classes. There are several groups of humans and robots designated to different groups. There is a set of rebel humans who want a more respectful position but the robots seem mostly to be content with their programmed purposes. Certain robots are not allowed to be on designated levels which in turn creates another group, the malduks, to keep them under watch. In general Tezuka’s city is a more complex and more realistic vision of society.

In Lang’s Metropolis the robot Hel is a monster to be feared where as in Tezuka’s the robots are common place civil servants. The character of Tima obviously corresponds with the Hel character as a more advanced form of life and also the substitute for a loved one. But in neither does the clash between human and robot seem to be the main plot so much as humans clashing with other humans and the rising of lower classes against their oppressors.

In Lang’s film the social dystopia is the underground a twisted mirror image of the utopia above it but in Tezuka’s the lines are not as clear. There is a gradation of dystopia in the newer film, there still exists the elevated commanding position but now we see the steps down through an upper class shopping district, then lower class housing and a red light district and the finally the factories of the depths. By the end of this film both ends are dystopic as the ziggurat falls in on itself.

Because of the more complex city design in Tezuka’s Metropolis our reading of the existing social dystopia is likewise literally multi layered. The film focuses more on the confusion of keeping robots and humans to their designated levels rather than the strict split between two groups. The upper class is also shown to be living in dystopia of their own creation more so than in the early piece, now a conflict between the capitalists, government and military exist. A more complex social order becomes a focus and makes the dystopia of the film more widespread yet less apparent on all levels.

12. Ben Nielson

Question: Whereas Caligari only splits its scenes into interior and exterior space, Metropolis 1927 extends this to include above ground and below ground. How does this affect development of the themes in the film?

Fritz Lang used the layered city of Metropolis to symbolize the lack of sociopolitical empathy between classes in the modern city. The Worker lives, works and dies underground in an elaborate social machine, while the Designers live above reaping the fruits of the workers’ labour. Metropolis has been interpreted as a criticism of capitalism and support of communism, a warning against communism, and a rejection of both in favour of a third system, but it matters little how we politically interpret the film; in which the oppressed worker class erupts in a destructive revolt against their hedonistic over-class.

Above-ground, in idyllic pleasure gardens, the sons of the rulers of Metropolis, run footraces and amuse themselves with elaborately costumed young women. Living obliviously on the efforts of the nameless legion below, the ruling class live with aristocratic ennui in the dream-city of the future. Their effortless existence is the dream of their fathers. However, as the films version of the Tower of Babel warns, the grand designs of mankind’s ambition require a workforce to construct and maintain them.

Underneath the high-rise canyons of Metropolis lie the Machine Halls, where the Workers struggle constantly against Moloch, a symbolic machine-deity that demands human sacrifice, blood to grease the gears and flesh to feed the fires. Workers moving into, out of, and through the Halls move with a stilted, artificial shuffle ; and perform in synchronicity when at work, reducing the proletariats of Metropolis to fleshy components in a network of pistons and gears that power and serve the city above, crafting the symbol of the sunless underground as a single large machine. It is this Machinist reduction of a man to a component of the machine he runs that helps render the sharp contrast between the subterranean and above-ground environments.

By using the physical stratification of Metropolis to reify the sociopolitical division of the modern city’s populace, Lang pressed the theme of the need for empathic mediation between the Designer and the Worker – the workers need to understand the dream of the designer, and the designer must temper ambition with compassion when making demands on the worker.

13. Uros Novakovic

Question: Compare the nature of the above ground worlds in Metropolis 1927 and 2001. How are they similar/different? How does the architecture support the idea of a class structure?

The above ground worlds in both Metropolis 1927 and 2001 present a similar, highly dense, vertical urban condition, in which the relative height is the primary measure of power and the class structure is formalized, and those in control of the city always reside in the tallest of its towers (Joh Fredersen in the Tower of Babel and Duke Red (later on Tima) in the Ziggurat – in both cases a reference is clearly made to a Mesopotamian town with a central ziggurat symbolically occupied by the deity).

Many differences between the nature of the above ground worlds result from the differences in genre and the time of the production. The gothic shining city of Metropolis 1927 presents empty dark streets in a mechanical world (only cars and planes are seen rhythmically moving through the streets). With the exception of the final rioting there is never more than one character walking in the streets of the Metropolis. The bland existence is then augmented by elitist and historical enclaves: classically themed Club of the Sons, organic Eternal Gardens, Asian entertainment district Yoshiwara, medieval Gothic Cathedral and the traditional Rotwang’s hut (seemingly the origin of the city). This absence of urban street life corresponds to the films over-simplified class structure, as the division between the proletarian and bourgeois classes is clearly formally articulated in the vertical hierarchy of the city and no middle class, inhabiting the city streets, is presented. The worker’s city, with its bland industrial architecture, is set a at the lowest level of the city (beneath the machines), while the Club of the Sons, with its classical motifs, is located at the top (in the sky).

The class structure is significantly more complex in Metropolis 2001, primarily due to the introduction of robots, which as the new proletariat replace the human labour. While there are considerable similarities in the appearance of the illuminated skyscrapers, the above ground world is considerably livelier as the majority, of the seemingly middle class population, occupies the bright vibrant (nearly utopian) city streets. The enclaves are not necessary. The workers (now no longer useful and with justification to revolt) although still below ground (Zone 1) now find themselves above the machines (Zone 2 and 3 – robot zones) in a more dystopic version of the contemporary metropolitan life, with more criminal activity, dirty streets and chaotic urban form.

14. Michael Taylor

Question: The expressionistic nature of the sets in Caligari can be seen to be more closely aligned with the character of the animated sets in 2001 Metropolis, than those used in 1927 Metropolis. Agree? Disagree? Comment.

Disagree. The sets proposed and viewed in caligari are in essence the manufactured backdrop of a dystopic and otherwise deconstructivist attitude, while in 2001 Metropolis, the sets are created to show more of a futristic viewpoint of how the world may be depicted many years from now. Within the 1927 metropolis ideas such as the machine itself becoming alive is reminiscent of the way in which the shadows act as visual life and movement in Dr. Caligari. The strong machination and steel depict the robotic nature of Fritz Langs masterpiece show a very real and very industrial viewpoint of what the steam and electric production lines have started for the contemporary lifestyle. Whereas in Caligari, the instituted set design is such that the sets while seemingly real, have added sharp curves, and text in some areas of the movie. The long set views in Caligari and overarching hierarchies of buildings in the 1927 metropolis are very closely aligned in that again with the shadowing and overall sublime nature of the architecture display a very distinct qualities that are reminiscent of one another.

Within 2001, I find that the buildings and overall dimensions of the landscape while vast and great, do not display this same oppressive stance as showed within Caligari and the 1927 version of metropolis. I somewhat believe this is to do with the animation sequences within 2001 lighten the overall effect of the sets to show how the community while destroyed morally by the bias against the robots within the movie, still maintains a very human feeling within its ideals. The human scale has not been forgotten and the building landscape while large, shows many references to how a human being commincates with others and experiences the urban landscape. This, unlike Caligari and 1927 Metropolis, where the sets are much smaller when showing the human scale of the buildings versus individual. (I realize the stop motion animation is shown a very large scale but nonetheless scenes pervading to humanity in general and the individual are cast at a much smaller scale).

15. Holly Young

Question: Comment on the impact of colour on the reading of dystopia in the environment presented in the 2001 version of Metropolis vs. the 1927 version.

The absence and presence of colour in the 1927 and 2001 versions of Metropolis, respectively, impacted the means by which the utopian and dystopian environments in both movies were able to be represented and then contrasted with one another. In the 2001 version of Metropolis, different plays on colour were utilized as a medium through which the viewer could identify, categorize and experience the different levels of the environment presented within the project.

Surface Level

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 3

Snowfall

The upper world of Metropolis is infused with hues reminiscent of an art deco style. The colours are bright and abundant, instilling positive energy and implying decadence, yet are not garish, so that the environment still promotes comfort and a sense of ease. These methods are used to signify a utopian environment and represent ‘the good life’. One level below the city, where the city’s oppressed poor are forced to live with equally oppressed worker-robots, the colours are still plentiful, but the chosen shades are exceedingly brash and excessively bright, now set against a background of black instead of awash with sunlight. The resulting dynamic is unsettling, uncomfortable, and feels somewhat chaotic, creating an environment of dystopia. The second level below the city utilizes equally harsh colours, but very few of them, and the third level is hardly lit at all, allowing for very little colour to be registered. The farther down the vertical hierarchy one goes, the progression toward darkness intensifies. As the plot moves forward, the city’s oppressed plan a revolt, and the deceptions and evils of Metropolis’ government are made clear. At this point in the story there is a snowfall and all colours are muted: once sharp, intense colours become little more than monochromatic. The darkness of the lowest levels has moved upwards, and the once utopian city is now visually connected to its dystopian roots and realities. The grey and muted colours of the debris left after the ultimate destruction of the city at the end of the film has a similar effect.

Though the director of the original 1927 version of the film, Fritz Lang, was initially inspired by the dazzling skyscrapers and brightly hued lights of New York City , his project was created at a point in history before the advent of colour in film. Therefore, instead of employing variations in colour to contrast the upper and lower realms of Metropolis, he utilized variations in light.

Upper Metropolis

Fredersen's Office

Machine Rooms

Catacombs

City Nightfall

At the beginning of the movie, the upper world is bathed in light: it filters gently into the Pleasure Garden , beams into the Stadion, and streams through the windows of Joh Fredersen’s office. Light is used to represent the utopian aspect of the world above. In stark contrast, the lower world of the overworked proletariat is covered in shadow. Darkness is the chosen backdrop for the giant machines, it surrounds the workers as they climb into the elevators to begin their workday, and it permeates the ‘holy’ catacombs. Later in the film, as the destruction of the lower levels is underway and the workers revolt, we experience the upper world at night: many city lights against a dark black sky. The dark, previously identified as a symbol of the dystopian environment below Metropolis, has been introduced to the world above. The clarity of the structure and social hierarchy that separates the upper and lower worlds (the light from the dark) is collapsing, the corruption at the root of the society is at its most plainly evident, and this shift in the use of lighting is used to represent these changes. Good and bad is not as simple as black and white, and the characters in the film (along with the audience) are being introduced to a more complex world of uncertainty, compromise, and grey area.

The varying use of colour in the 2001 version of Metropolis allowed for more complex relationships between the visual representations of the world above and the layers below than in the 1927 version. However, the former had a much more intricate plot than the latter, and therefore may have needed that intricacy and complexity, whereas the 1927 version did not. In the end, both films were not only able to successfully identify and symbolize very distinct (at least initially) utopian and dystopian worlds through their respective use of colour and light, but also to show how those worlds collided and became as one, by using those same instruments to reflect the progression of the plot over the length of the films.

16. Michael Morgan

Question: Compare the portrayal of the workers accommodation (first level below ground) in the two versions of Metropolis. How is each perhaps suited to the time in which the film project was produced? Reference the architectural styles of both environments.

Fritz Lang’s version of Metropolis produced in 1927 and the Anime version of Metropolis produced in 2001 are films that depict the negative effect a capitalist society has on the working class citizen. A comparison of the workers accommodation in both films reveals a strong link to the time period in which each film was produced and illustrates the full extent of the danger a capitalist society has to the working class citizen.

In the original version of Metropolis, the workers accommodation depicts a working class that is seen within society as a simple gear in the machine of production. In line with this thinking, the uniqueness and individuality of the worker is not considered important. This is expressed in architectural terms by the massive apartment blocks, stuffed in close proximity to each other, with very little amenity space. The elevations of these buildings express no sense of identity, to the point where it is impossible to determine where one residence ends and another begins.

The situation described above bore many similarities to real life around the time when this film was produced. During this time industrial technology was still in its infancy and the production of goods still relied heavily on the working class. These people occupied a similar role in society working long hours for relatively little pay and lived in similar poor conditions as the working class in Metropolis.

In the 2001 version of Metropolis, working class citizens are obsolete as they have been replaced by more efficient robots. Much like old technology, the less effective working class has been simply discarded. This aspect is reinforced architecturally through the slums working class citizens are forced to live in. These slums consist of discarded materials that have been reassembled into simple one-room dwellings that house up to three families at a time. Their lack of a meaningful role in within society nature is exemplified through their lack of connections to existing streets and other infrastructure within the city, as well as the lack of planning within the slums themselves.

The concept of a discarded working class is somewhat reflected in our present day society, where an increase in the use of technology has resulted in the loss of jobs among working class citizens. In particular, the automobile industry now uses computerized mechanical arms instead of human beings on many assembly lines.

The workers accommodation in both films graphs the possible decline of the working class citizen in a capitalist society from skilled craftsman to a simple gear in a machine for production, and from this to being obsolete altogether.

17. Ashley Snell

Question: How is differentiated architectural style used to represent varying levels of authority or power in both versions of Metropolis? Is this also a factor in Caligari?

In Metropolis (1927), the architectural style used to represent varying levels of authority or power is obvious. The worker’s city below has moderately smaller buildings that all look a like. The buildings have frames and equally spaced and sized windows. While the city above, where all the middle to upper class people live, the buildings are taller, varying shapes and have much more detail. The taller and more decorative buildings symbolize money and power. This idea is similar to our views today of major cities such as New York .

The scales of both cities are shown through the activities and camera views. The worker’s city does not seem to permit cars. It is seen at a pedestrian level. Also, the view from the camera only shows few buildings at a time in one shot making the viewer think it is a small place. The city above has lots of vehicle action happening with huge four lane streets running around the buildings. The view from above looking down at the buildings and the streets make the city look enormous. The little cars show the scale of the towering buildings. The most important building is usually centered in the shot of the city. When the focus is just on it, the view is from a low angle looking up which represents the authority and power within.

In Metropolis (2001), the same concepts are applied with different architectural styles. The city above is similar to that of the original Metropolis that is, it has big, beautiful expensive skyscrapers. The colour adds to the happening city and the anime allows for flashy lights. Zone 1, the city below, has a carnival/circus-esque feeling. The colours are a little bit muted and dark blue and greens are used in the alleyways. There are more shadows to represent the uneasiness of Zone 1. Stereotypical carnies and circus folk are poorer and have sketchier appearances. In today’s standards, they are the lower class. They are not allowed to enter the city above. The city above has high density but is not unbearable. Zone 1, is over populated and crowded. This represents dystopia in the underworld. One could easily get lost in the lower levels.

Again, the man with the power is located in one of the bigger if not the biggest tower in the city. The bigger the building, the more power is represented inside it.

I do not believe this is a factor in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. In one review it says the writers were fed up with the people in power therefore no one architectural style represented power or authority. The city is viewed as one entity so almost all the architecture is similar in style with odd shapes and angles representing chaos. One instance, Francis goes into the clergy’s/city building/police (I can’t remember what it was exactly) and the room is more spacious but still angular whereas for most other scenes it is very crowded.

18. Ivy Ho

Question: Comment on the use of light/darkness and use of "shadows" in Caligari and 1927 Metropolis in creating a more fearful or dystopic environment.

The contrast of light and dark and the use of shadows in the films “The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari” and Fritz Lang’s “Metropolis” evoke and heighten the state of dystopia and fear. In these two films, many variations on the techniques of contrast and shadows are utilized to express themes, explore the characters’ psyche, and to evoke fear in the audience.

The opening scene of “Metropolis” sets up the image of the dystopic society where its citizens are polarized into the working class and the upper class. The workers are shown dragging their leaden bodies in and out of elevators which take them down into the machine room. The frame switches from the bright hall where workers are lining up to enter the elevators to the frame of complete darkness as they begin their descent into the abyss of their underground work place. The workers’ world is shrouded in darkness with jolts of contrast between light and dark. This image is juxtaposed immediately with the scene of Freder and the upper class in the Club of the Sons. The large stadium is basked in sun light; Freder and the ladies in the garden are lit with soft, even lighting. The contrast between these two opening scenes is achieved partially through the use of two different lighting techniques. The scenes of the underground city are filmed with low-key lighting, where the intensity of the key light, the main source of illumination, is much greater than the fill light, which is the light that’s used to soften the shadows created by the key lights. The effects can range from a shadowy atmosphere to a high contrast light/dark, which are the two prominent lighting conditions in the workers’ city. The technique used for the skyscraper world of the upper class is three-point lighting. This method utilizes an even combination of the key, fill and back lights, where the back light helps to create depth and airiness by lighting the background, thus, separating the actor in the front from the set in the back. These techniques are used throughout the film to emphasize the tension between the social classes. One scene after the machine explosion in the prelude further reinforces this class divide. Workers were shown in the foreground carrying off the injured, while Freder stands in the back, overwhelmed by the event in the machine room. In this scene, the workers’ anonymity as dark silhouettes is contrasted with Freder’s importance, as he is shown in perfect focus and bathed in light at the back.

Dystopia in Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is achieved through the disoriented world of Francis’ psyche. In this film, low-key lighting is used in two ways. The high contrast of light and dark is painted onto the sets. The painted lights and shadows are stylized into odd shapes – jagged trapezoids, obtuse triangles, and vertical slits. They seem to cut the space into shards, heightening the disorienting and menacing effects of the tilted and jagged architecture. Francis’ world seems to threaten to fall onto the characters and engulf them. The second effect created by low-key lighting in this film is the darkness that pervades most of the scenes. Light is only focused on the main event or the main characters of the frame, while the rest of the frame is usually shrouded in darkness. Furthermore, sets all recede into darkness – the street outside of Francis’ house; the stairs up to the police station; Alan’s room; the wall outside of Jane’s house. This lighting technique and scene composition is very similar to Rembrant’s use of chiaroscuro. The darkness represents the unknown and evokes anticipation and fear from the audience. One scene that demonstrates this is when Caligari lures Jane into the tent to see Cesare, the somnambulist. He disappears behind the tent fabric. One only sees his white gloved hand, suspended and waving in a pitch black interior.

Shadows are used in both films to evoke both fear and the dystopia of the characters’ psychological state. In ‘Caligari’, Cesare’s act of murder is shown only as distorted shadows, where the forms of the murderer and victim are skewed and exaggerated. This lack of realistic graphic information triggers the audience’s imagination. As Kurt Tucholsky states, “A murder becomes visible – as a play of shadows on a gray wall. And shows once again how something imagined is more horrible than anything shown. No cinema can compete with our imagination.” This shadow technique is adapted in Metropolis on another level. When Maria is chased by Rotwang at the top of the Cathedral, their actions are doubly shown as both realistic and as shadows. In both films, the showing of the stark shadows suggests the duality in the characters. They represent a doppelganger, a dark ghost, alter ego or distorted side of man’s personality that emerges in the darkness of night to haunt him.

19. Jonah Humphrey

Question: In the two versions of Metropolis, compare and contrast the advantages/disadvantages of scale models versus animation in the creation of the more dystopic elements of the environment.

Both versions of Metropolis begin by showing us the apparent Utopia that exists in the city above, which, after having seen both films, we may argue is the actual instigator of the dystopia that exists in the city, and the oppression upon those that live below. In Fritz Lang’s version, a model of towers with a painted background and spotlights scanning across the sky is not unlike the slightly more ‘jazzed-up’, Piranesi-vision of New York version in Tezuka’s rendition of the story. Interestingly here, however, we see a clue into the fundamental difference between the approaches to rendering the environments in the two films. Lang’s first vision of the city is distinctly asymmetrical, giving almost the sense of an art-deco illuminated mountain range of skyscrapers forming the city, while the shot in the new version of the film, is purposely symmetrical, firstly to emphasize the idyllic nature of the city above, but also revealing the sense of composition that is fundamentally more akin to rendering of two dimensional images, even if it does incorporate three-dimensional computer models.

Both films soon take us into the regions of Metropolis below ground (if there is such a stable thing). The workers city of the 1927 film utilizes scale models coupled with sets, merged in multiple exposures – a technique that is used throughout the film to give a convincing effect of these being real spaces, as impossible as they may be. This version of the worker’s city is distinctly unadorned, making these minimalist apartment towers set below ground, much closer to prison buildings in a sky-less world. The contemporary version of the worker’s city, or rather, Zone-1, is much more of a European setting, with tight, labyrinthian streets, coupled with carnival-like colours, and a gritty coating of dirt and grease. This world somehow seems much more lived in than the 1927 Metropolis counterpart, which in retrospect, only increases the dystopic effect of the earlier film’s setting. One aspect noticed immediately, then, is the level of detail that is invested in the later film’s dystopic layers below the earth. This is primarily achievable due to the film’s use of traditional background hand-rendering, allowing a great time to be spent on composition, and filling the frame with additional detail to give it an enriched, and ironically, more inviting appearance, as compared with those scenes made with actual three dimensional sets and models of Fritz Lang’s film.

Similar differences of models and rendering can be noticed in the two variations of the inventor’s labs. Rotwang’s house, nestled between tall towers, appears as a strange outcropping of the catacombs below the surface. When we enter his laboratory, we are presented the very cave-like environment in which he works, composed of curving walls made of a single surface. Again, the level of detail in the environment is exceptionally minimal, as when compared with Laughton’s lab, which is purposely enriched with a green mist that surrounds his dome of piping. Inside, the environment appears bejeweled with controls, screens and lots and lots of brass piping – like living inside an elaborate espresso machine. It’s clear that the detail, and the careful composition of the images in this film lend themselves to development of extreme detail, and atmosphere, in contrast with the minimalism of the 1927 film. Again, though, the later film’s more detailed account of the dystopic world somehow makes it a place that is more desireable to enter – which in some ways, makes it more accessible, yet less dystopic. This is perhaps because the imagery created of this environment requires much less spatial, or even functional resolution, such as with the use of ‘piping for piping’s sake’ approach taken in the creation of the images of this world. I find it ironic, then, that I’m somehow more attracted to this environment, as a place to enter, than the actual three-dimensional sets that really could be viewed in Fritz Lang’s film.

The machine worlds of both films bring us much of the same differences in approaches to creating these worlds. The M-machine of the earlier Metropolis, for example, again uses multiple exposures of full-sized sets, models, and moving machinery, to create illusions of scale that even today are quite convincing. This version, maintains the minimalist style of the film, emphasizing the torment and the anguish the actors themselves experience in operating the city’s machinery. In contrast to this, the lowest level of Tezuka’s Metropolis, is a dark, seemingly organic network of piping, where the atmosphere, and sparing moments of light, set much more of a mood, than define a specific space. Again, I find the latter more compelling as a vision of a world, but much less realistic, or, at least, less spatially possible, than the former – which, in some way only makes it more desirable to enter. Also, it is worth mentioning that in the second version of the film, the primary characters are small children, which, set against this incredible environment, only makes the scale of this world seem larger. Also, these characters have been drawn with far less detail than their environments, in direct contrast with the difference of detail between the actors and environment of Lang’s film, which suggests again, a purposeful focus on the actors in the earlier version, and an even larger role the environment plays in the latter.

In the end, both of the cities meet some level of destruction, with the primary distinction that it is the machine world below that is destroyed in the earlier film, and the idyllic world above, in the latter. Both utilize these scenes to reveal the tyranny that had been carried out by those above. The earlier film gives a convincing portrayal of the destruction of the underbelly of the city as the workers city fills with water, and the workers run through the streets – this is then, genuinely set as a scene of panic and fear. The latter version, however, in much of the same means of composing particular (if not romanticized) visions of the city, makes the scene of the Ziggurat’s destruction a moment of sadness and longing, set to Ray Charles’ “I Can’t Stop Loving You”, which, again somehow makes the scene one that draws you further into it, even if it is noticeably less realistic, and far more stylized. The music aside, this scene is actually horrifying, since, only through violence and destruction do we see exposed the true nature of the Ziggurat as a weapon, Tima’s own mechanical nature, and ultimately the blindness of love for an image of an unreal world.

20. Aleks Kolbas

Question: The 1927 version of Metropolis presents a dystopic environment that is technologically set in the future. The 2001 version presents dystopia but uses many technological elements that seem rooted in the past. How do these choices affect the relative success of the atmosphere created in each film?

‘Metropolis’_ 1927vs2001

Allow me to set my argumentative position by saying this: ‘there is no computer generated cinematography today that will ever be up to par with the phenomenal design sets presented in Fritz Lang’s version of Metropolis. No movie has ever pulled the limits of special effects as much as this one’. By stating this, I must immediately favor this over Osamu Tezuka’s version, right? Not entirely. By viewing both films respectively, the two versions’ valiant effort to present a dystopic environment is impeccable. The treatment of space in both films is similar; however, with the variance in use of special effects, lack or exploitation of, they achieve very different results. Two major differences in design set backdrops are the effects of symmetry and disproportion that unveils the power of deception behind these masterpieces. I realized the methodical use of Lang’s unerring camera placement and the muscular choreography of the scale that relentlessly places the machine-driven environment as an absolute arbiter over mankind. This obsession to obscure reality and present the future in this mega-colossal manner is clear; machine will one day overtake a human being and rule over him. Some of the best scenes that expose this idea in the film take place in the underground mines, showing the workers portrayed as little more than components on a gigantic, sinister looking machine . A door that is twenty feet high found in John Federson’s office was another good evidence to show the obscurity of scale and the dominance of ‘built’ over ‘living’. In essence, the ideology behind 1927 version was to present a prophetic vision of what the future will be like. As was for other German Expression ists, this was important for Lang: to underline the components of self-destructiveness of a society through the use of extravagant, largely unproportioned built forms that will prove unsustainable and fall under their own weight. Osamu Tezuka observes Lang’s version of the film and ostensibly scrutinizes his vision of the future. Much of the plot remained the same, however the proportion of forms and softness of the edges were very much drawn to human scale and feeling. Symmetrical components of the machine shown in the Lang’s version seemed lost in Tezuka’s vision of the world, as if he gave in to the potency of the machine making it much less dominant, if not completely destructive. In the 2001 version of the film, Osamu shows his compassion for the working class, making them a ‘foundation’ of the Metropolis, rather than the elites. He argues that our ingenuity can sometimes be our tragedy, and that arbiter of value is not the machine that races toward the future, but our memories that connects us to the past. What Fritz Lang in his version of ‘Metropolis’ wanted to get rid of, is what Osamu Tezuka wants to get back.

21. Tavis McAuley

Question: In Metropolis 2001, speak to the issue of the environment (degradation of buildings and waste) in the lower Zones. How does this relate to the 1927 version. Why do you think there is this change between the films (particularly given that the Astro Boy Manga/show upon which the Osamu Tezuka film was based was written in 1963). How does this relate to the presentation of the environment in Man with a Movie Camera?

In Metropolis 2001 the stratification of social class, from human and advanced robots at the crust of the planet to waste robots at subterranean levels underscores the theme of progress in the film. This is also evident in the portrayal of buildings and resultant environmental destruction left in the wake of human and technological progress. The waste from previous generations including buildings that have fallen into disuse and the mounting piles of garbage, both metaphorically and perhaps physically become the underpinning structure of the current stratus of the city. This to some degree resembles the tradition of burying the waste and building remains under ancient roman cities leaving behind a footprint of past civilization. Tezuka’s narrative in the film of waste reflects the attitudes towards consumption during the 1960s when for the first time, especially in Japan, people could afford to buy more accessories. This stemmed from both a booming economy and employment in addition to an emphasis on designing products with little durability that could affordably be replaced with the most up-to-date model. The images of aged robots being disposed of and the functioning radio falling into the pile of garbage all suggest that current civilization has turned its back on the environment.

In contrast to the 2001 version, in the 1927 version subterranean levels are a place of the past, almost forgotten by the upper classes. The lower levels have become a secret place of collective revolt for the working class against the industrial machine that has saddled them with the monotonous work regime. Some reference to the natural world still exists beneath the city in the 1927 version however, in the 2001 version reference to nature is limited to the symbolic white doves.

In Man With a Camera, industrial progress is filmed with a element of naive fascination. Iconic stills of tall smoke stacks with the natural sky moving past, serve to contrast these two opposing forces. There seems to be an optimism that the industrial revolution can exist in harmony with nature without the compromises and evident destruction of the environment depicted in both versions of Metropolis.

22. Jody Patterson

Question: Compare the presentation of urban space in Caligari and Metropolis 1927 with Man with a Movie Camera, and then to Metropolis 2001. How does the urban space used in each film assist in a different level of plot development.

In each of these films, the presentation of urban space foreshadows and enhances plot development: the actions of the plot take on the character of their environs. In The Cabinet of Dr Caligari the environment – both natural and constructed - is twisted into deviant forms as an analogy of violent delusions, with sharp points which suggest the dangerous distortions of the plot. The urban space presented is an unreal realm of nightmares and horrific hallucinations. Essential to the creation of that mysterious dystopia in which the plot operates, in a sense the environment is the main character: perverse pervasive and pervasive, it provides the only indication of the film’s ultimate resolution. Metropolis (1927) presents three models of urban space, each symbolic of the life that exists there. The Club of the Sons at the uppermost echelon is a space of opulence and luxury, represented by charming classical buildings and stylized natural forms. In the city, polished modern towers glitter graciously among smoothly flowing transit routes. A physical embodiment of efficiency and elegance, these urban space represents all the benefits of upper-class post-industrial society: dignified work, refined leisure, culture and exotic entertainment, unmarred by production and the presence of the lower classes. The Club of the Sons and the city of Metropolis (1927) stand in marked contrast to the workers’ city deep underground, in a physical indication of the social stratification essential to the plot. To support the utopia above, workers slave in the machine halls and then descend to their unnatural underground city, a harshly unbeautiful concrete landscape of brutalist buildings under fluorescent lights. The dystopic way of life of the working class is illustrated by the urban space in which they exist, just as the affluence and comforts of the upper classes are clearly represented in their environments. Thus in Metropolis (1927), the urban space used is a series of supporting characters, underlining the differences between social castes from which the plot unfurls. The urban space presented in Man with a Movie Camera is the only real city, is presented in its natural everyday state, and consequentially is the closest to ‘background’ scenography. However, by recording the diurnal rhythms of the city, paralleled by its machines and its inhabitants, a sense of natural harmony is established. The urban space presented is the benign - even benevolent - host of human activity, operating at various scales but always sympathetic to the cadence of the life which animates it. Metropolis (2001) echoes the 1927 film in the parody between social class and physical environment, presenting a fantastic hyper-modern utopia on the surface with a decrepit underground slum for outcasts and the robots essential to the economy. The sparkling city above is futuristic and fabulous, while the sordid city below resembles a decaying ghetto that could be found in the world today – but both are as deliberately ‘cast’ and suggestively designed as the rest of the characters in the animated film. Thus the urban spaces used in each film, to varying degrees, act as a caricature of the society which inhabits it: whether utopian, dystopian, or merely a comfortable everyday.