Collisions and resolutions in Metropolis: Class, technology, and gender divisions - Essay Example

? Collisions and resolutions in Metropolis: technology, and gender divisions September 7, Collisions and resolutions in Metropolis: Class, technology, and gender divisions Scholars and critics have been divided on the representations and implications of the social, economic, technological, and political imaginary in Lang’s (1927) Metropolis. On the one hand, Eggebrecht, in Germany, condemned the film’s “mythical” description of the “unshakeable dialectic of the class struggle” (cited in Huyssen 1981, p.221), while Eisner complained of the “excess emotionalism” of the film (cited in Morgan 2000, p.288). Huyssen (1981), on the other hand, stressed that Metropolis should be considered as an “expressionist” production of opposing utopian and dystopian views of technology, but with a greater utopian interpretation (p.223). Rutsky (1993) argued, however, that the opposing views of technology are both “dystopian”, although “mediation” (p.3) is possible. This essay analyses Lang’s creation of two opposing worlds in Metropolis through the director’s theatrical and painterly treatment of the Metropolis’ society and camera movement and editing. The managers’ and workers’ worlds generally collided, because of conflicting interests that intersected prevailing class, technology, and gender issues, although the film’s ending suggested some form of resolution through “mediation.” Lang used stylised architecture, which has a “layered structure” that captures the class, age, and gender divisions in society. Each of the film’s shot progresses to another in a more vertical fashion than horizontal, which delineates the vertically-structured, capitalist social class system. The skyscrapers and its vertical divisions underscore the linkages among different sectors of society. The bottom layers serve to buttress the upper layers. More so, these layered buildings delineate the sharp division between the managerial and working class. The New Tower of Babel “dominates the skyline” and stands for the vertical social class structure (Lunning 2008, p.130). It serves as the “control” centre or the brain of the whole metropolis, while other infrastructures radiate from it (Lunning 2008, p.130). Its internal mechanisms also plunge further below towards the roots, where the workers live and work. The working class are further divided by gender and age, where the young workers are more visible than the older ones. The female aspect of labour is invisible in this film. Rotwang symbolises the dualism between the old and young and the female and male, as he lives in his old and cavernous laboratory. This laboratory represents his old age, which is tempered, or rather worsened, by his brilliance. His prosthetic hand represents the decay of humanity and the rise of technology and it is the same hand that “lights” Maria with an artificial light source (Roth 1978, p.344). The loss of his hand signifies the “castration” of the male because of his pursuit of the robot version of Hel, his loved one, and the “castration” of his humanity, because he became obsessed in producing technology to fill in the missing human connection in his life (Roth 1978, p.344). He is also old and he needed technology to sustain his life’s ambitions, unlike the young Maria and Freder who use their energy to achieve their missions in life. His laboratory is a labyrinth of his mind, the conscious logic. Still, Lang showed that no matter how genius Rotwang seems, his emotionality clouded his rationality, which resulted to his doom. The Metropolis is also geographically defined with a clear division between the upper and lower ground, as the urban space further allocated spaces “for living, working, and recreation” (Lunning 2008, p.130). The subterranean portion of the city houses the workers and their offspring, while the beautiful, panoramic, and technology-driven upper segment supports the managers and their brethren. Stoicea (2006) talked about the “frame-by-frame” shots that combined lighting and shadows to highlight architectural styles and their differences (p.23). The movement of the camera, she stressed, reinforced Marx’s belief that the economic system entailed the “dynamic motion of the economy” (Stoicea 2006, p.23). There are also sharp architectural differences between the world of the managers and the workers. The world of the managers is symmetrical and mechanical. It exudes power and wealth, logic and consciousness. The lower grounds of the worker represent the convoluted emotions and experiences of the workers. Their environment is bleak, cold, and depressing. Lang further expressed different metropolitan and subterranean views with painted effects and this treatment highlights the “produced” dimension of utopia. Huyssen (1981) compared the canyoned-walls of the Metropolis with “Hannah Hoch’s Dadaist photomontages” (p.223). Through the painted landscapes, it suggests that someone, specifically the “head” manager, designed the utopian society, while overlooking its numerous costs, such as dehumanisation of labour and segregation based on social classes and gender. Thus, while there is rationalised beauty in the organised nature of the Metropolis, it underlies the “hidden” and inhumane truths behind it. It must be stressed, nevertheless, that the “unseen” in the film can be considered as a way of “seeing” of the invisible. Roth (1978) focused on analysing lighting effects and use to show dualism and conflicts in “[structuring] and [articulating] thematic concerns” (Guerin 2005, p.136). Lang used “halos of light” when shooting the real Maria, such as in Freder’s garden and at the altar in the cave. Sunlight and candle light can be said as “natural light” and stresses that Maria is the natural female- virginal and pure (Roth 1978, p.344). The false Maria, on the contrary, is invented in the laboratory and is made with a man-made source, which is the same source of its lighting, electricity (Roth 1978, p.344). The real Maria has a heart and the light that surrounds her reflects her noble intentions of preaching and inspiring workers to have hope despite their oppressed circumstances; she represents the “Mary” or the prophet of the workers (Roth 1978, p.344). The false Maria is created by Man, not by God, and Lang even used an inverted pentagram at its back to connote the symbol for black magic (Roth 1978, p.344). In addition, the blurring of the scenes as the false Maria gets the image of the real Maria stands for the machine as an agent that corrupts the real image of humanity and God (Roth 1978, p.344). In addition, Lang’s film is often seen as misogynistic, although it can also be argued as criticising gender structures. The “nightclub episode” asserts how men see females- as sexual objects (Petrescu 2010, p.279). The robotic Maria is a female vamp figure with the “male gaze” sexualising the human female form and behaviour (Petrescu 2010, p.279). Webber (2000) cited Freud’s identification of the eye as the “privileged objet status of the phallus” (p.259). The male eyes, as Lang showed them in multiples, hungrily consume the female body with intense desire. At this point, technology is used to depict femininity as “threatening,” since the false Maria drives the males to fits of irrationality (Petrescu 2010, p.279). It is through the vamp machine that femininity is demonised and decreased as means for mankind’s sexual and political endeavours. When women are seen positively in the film, nonetheless, they are seen as the virginal archetype, another extreme. Their roles are constrained by their domestic duties too, although the film no longer describes the female sphere of labour. Maria serves as the virginal prophet, and she is also emotional with her constant clutching of her heart. This action serves as the side of her emotionality, which in a technological world, is a source of illogical intentions. To explore further, the actual productive activities of female and older workers are unseen in the film. This should not be surprising, because technology is often held to be a male space (Huyssen 1981, p.224). At the same time, female upper-class women engage in diverse stereotyped social roles. When women are shown, they are playing stereotyped archetypal roles: the mother (Maria), the temptress or the vamp (the woman that Freder flirts with in the beginning and the robotic Maria), and the household help (female workers). Maria, as a prophet, enjoyed a somewhat exalted role, since Lang could have chosen a male prophet, after all. Her sacred duties are maligned, however, by the robotic image of her. Fredersen planned to use Futura for his capitalist goals of ruining the workers’ movement, but Rotwang had other intentions in mind. Rotwang wanted revenge against Fredersen, and he used a female character to achieve his masculine ego needs. In addition, the “old” working sector is also missing in this equation. Although there are older workers, the senior population seems to be omitted. The omission, whether deliberate or not, underlines the necessity of youth in fuelling capitalism. In an economic system, the youth is needed to propel industrialisation, while the old is set aside as if they are worthless beings, since they can no longer be as productive as the youth. The absence of these sectors remarks on the opposition between modernism and humanism. The film asks if modernism is humane enough to recognise and take care of its women and elderly. The film also manifested gender roles and divisions with a clear emphasis on the reproduction of gender oppression. The vertical structures and machines, in addition, are phallic symbols with “sexual overtones” (Stoicea 2006, p.23). Stoicea (2006) noted that the tempo of the machine resembles the act of sex, as it culminated in the “dramatic cadence of the clock” (p.23). She argued that the visualisation of the machine only partially followed the “Utopian socialist idea” of designing “work” “after an image of the pleasure of procreation” (Benjamin, p. 367 cited in Stoicea 2006, p.24). Pleasure is critical to the “fetishistic” depiction of mechanical processes and power, but the actual product of reproduction cannot be perceived (Stoicea 2006, p.24). The machine images only multiply machines, as Lang produced the same shots of rotating mechanisms. This process of multiplication implicates the “sterility” of technology and the coining of “reproduction” in economic interpretation (Stoicea 2006, p.24). In addition, the sterility of technology emphasises the unseen in the industrial age, as if the world industrialised without the “other half” (Stoicea 2006, p.28). Stoicea (2006) called this the “Sexus/Eros divide,” where the male sex is legalised, while the female sex is criminalised (p.28). The female vamp, for instance, dances in the red-light district, a place of sin and criminal activities. Her repetitive and slow-motion dance movements emulate the machine or her technology and capitalises the female as evil. The female class is then rendered missing or in stereotyped roles, in ways that oppress their existence and contributions to society. Technology and class structures intertwine and result to complex dualistic relationships. Ward (1999) agreed that the camera played with “the hidden and the visible” and focused on the religious narrative beneath the capitalist structure of society (p.141). He said that when the camera captured the cavernous lodging of the workers, it evokes the myth that Wagner showed in Das Reingeld, where the Nibelungen worked in the hidden world for the evil dwarf, Alberich (Ward 1999, p.141). Lang's films, such as Siegfried (1924) and Kremhild's Revenge (1924) also adopted Germanic mythology. In Metropolis, the city’s geometric surface represses the workers with its “rationalisation and commodification of space and time” (Kasinitz 1995, p.1 cited in Ward 1999, p.141). Ward (1999) identified the dualisms present in the film too, particularly the conscious world of logic versus the subconscious caves of emotions; human versus technology or machine; individual versus the society; and good versus evil (p.142). Technology represents logic, while nature stands for the subconscious. Humans perpetually struggle to both create and control technology. The society also controls the individual with its social classifications. Good versus evil is represented in Biblical terms. The New Tower of Babel fits the symbolism for modernity and man’s hubris (Lunning 2008, p.130). Lang narrated the story of the biblical Tower of Babel, which God eventually destroyed. The destruction of this mythical Babel signified the limits of modernisation and the indefinite power of the spiritual. This scene foreshadowed the destruction of the Metropolis, which eventually took place. The image of the “New Tower of Babylon,” shown in a low angle shot, depicts the stature of the master over technology and the workers. Fredersen manages the communications centre with ease, which represents mastery of technology, but this same technology enslaves the workers (Huyssen 1981, p.223). Lang also employed a “vamp machine” to delineate evil versus good technology uses, depending on the user’s intentions (Huyssen 1981, p.223). This machine perpetuates chaos by inciting rebellion and pushing workers to armed conflict in a series of theatrical staging of emotions versus logic. It is interesting to underline that when the workers moved in rebellion, they acted in the same unidirectional flow like they did when they were oppressed. The idea of conformity has been embedded already in their subconsciousness. This subconscious, nevertheless, remains emotional and irrational, because the workers thought that the rebellion killed all their children. In response, they reacted emotionally once more to burn Maria in a stake. Hence, emotions are undermined as fleeting and irrational, while the logical sees the larger perspective. Metropolis employed light and shadow techniques to demystify “the brave new world” of industrialisation (Friedman 1993, p.36) and describe the utopia and dystopia of technology. Metropolis is first shown as a working machine, where the grand skyscrapers and transportation systems depend on the constant sacrifices of the working class. The M-Machine is shown as a fantastic display of power and efficiency, but Lang ensured that people “see” behind the technology and its power. The next scenes established the class division, where the workers are at the bottom of the social class and function with “technological rationality” (Rutsky 1993, p.5). Theatrical acting and staging depict the dehumanisation of the working class. Workers from the factory are coming out like robots; they are “inorganic, technological, and dead” (Rutsky 1993, p.5). They are dressed alike and act in monotonous movements. They are compared to machines that have repetitive motions. This scene demonstrates the mechanisation of mankind. They also keep their heads down, as if from excessive humility, like they have no dignity to be proud of. This scene remarked on the paradoxical lifelessness of the workers’ lives, due to their deplorable social, economic, and political disempowerment. The new world of industrialisation engenders class conflict. Friedman (1993) confirmed that the “organic metaphors” for the head and hand, or the manager and the workers, as well as the heart of the mediator, characterised the dystopia in utopia (p.37). The trilogy has a religious analogy, with Freder acting as Christ, Fredersen as God, and Maria as the Holy Spirit. In this analogy, technology is demonised, especially when Freder witnesses the explosion of the M-Machine, which kills and wounds many workers. In his mind, he sees Molloch, which is an evil god and to whom workers are being sacrificed. The myth parallels with the offering of human labourers to capitalism, as the capitalist structure sucks out the life, mentality, and energy of the working class. In addition, the low angle shot of M-Machine, as Freder compared him to Molloch, emphasised the magnified role of machinery in human civilisation. Machines have turned into Gods, while humans are mere slaves. It is amazing how the workers go back to work after the accident, as if nothing happened. This “normalcy” of accidents depicts the detachment and isolation of human emotions, as people rely more and more on technology to control their lives. Thus, technology has become the new master of labourers, which means that workers will constantly be in conflict with the machines that aim to either eradicate them or give them monotonous and unfulfilling job duties. Rutsky (1993) stressed that the film explores people’s apprehension about modernity, because “modern scientific-technological rationality” can trump “nature” (p.13). Technological rationality is shown as a tyrannical presence that aims to “master and possess nature,” thereby repressing it (Rutsky 1993, p.13). Repressing nature refers to the omission and control of “love, emotion, spirituality” (Rutsky 1993, p.13). Lang manifested this when he showed the sharp difference between the attire and manners of Fredersen and Freder. The medium shot of Fredersen, as he manages the communications centre, shows him in formal business attire and quite detached, even while his son dramatically weeps over his “brothers” pain and death. Freder dons an informal costume and acts more emotionally. Their personalities and attire describe the “split” between technology and nature. The film’s resolution, where Grot and Fredersen shook hands, suggested that “mediation” can resolve class struggles, although the uncertainty in this scene also promoted the idea of continued class struggle. Friedman (1993) asked about the liveability of a “City of Sorrows” like the Metropolis (p.38), where various divisions flourish. The film indicates that when there is a mediator, it is possible to extend the brotherhood between the working class and managerial class (Poore 2000, p.80). It is crucial, however, for the upper class to also experience what it means to be the lower class, like what Freder did. Freder worked a 10-hour shift in a feverish state, where he becomes part of the machine. He experiences what it is to be dehumanised by working long hours, which drives him to exhaustion. Afterwards, he feels the same emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion as other workers. Through this immersion in the working class imaginary, Freder has become “one” with the workers, as he now walks and behaves like them- walking with a downward cast in his eyes, as if life has been sucked away from him. This resolution, however, is often criticised as “melodramatic” and superficial. In the real world, managers and workers do not end conflict by mere shaking hands, or even if it is a symbol for mediation. Mediators face the perpetual conflict of interests between capitalist class and working class; the former wants to make more money, while the latter also wants higher wages and better working conditions, which will reduce the bottom line. Thus, the film only suggests that mediation can reduce conflicts and help resolve working-class versus upper-class conflicts. Lang employed theatrical and painterly treatment of the Metropolis’ society and camera movement and editing to stage the conflicts between opposing classes and thoughts. The film shows that the managers’ and workers’ worlds generally collided, because of conflicting interests that intersected prevailing class, technology, and gender issues, although the film’s ending suggested some form of resolution through “mediation.” These conflicts are represented in various symbolisms and images and reinforced by lighting effects. The painted and stylistic architecture also helped readers understand the vast antagonisms present in various dualisms, such as between humanity and technology and between the working class and upper class. Lang suggested that mediation can help reduce opposing worlds, but this is the only means. In the end, it leaves the society to resolve its own problems, which should comprehensively respond to existing social, economic, political, technological, and gender issues. The future of the real Metropolis should not be as dystopian as in the film, if only, as Lang suggested, people took time to try each other’s shoes and think of ways of responding to the interconnected needs and concerns of all stakeholders. The way to lasting and practical utopia is a journey of and by “all.” Reference List Friedman, R 1993, ‘'Capitals of Sorrow': from Metropolis to Brazil,’ Utopian Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 35-43. Guerin, F 2005, A culture of light: cinema and technology in 1920s Germany, University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota. Huyssen, A 1981, ‘The vamp and the machine: technology and sexuality in Fritz Lang's Metropolis,’ New German Critique, no. 24/25, pp. 221-238. Lunning, F 2008, Mechademia 3: limits of the human, University of Minnesota Press, Minnesota. Metropolis, 1927, DVD, Germany. Morgan B 2000, ‘Metropolis- the archetypal version- sentimentality and self-control in the reception of the film,’ in M Minden & H Bachmann (eds.), Fritz Lang's Metropolis: cinematic visions of technology and fear, Camden House, New York, pp.288-310. Petrescu, M 2010, ‘Domesticating the vamp: jazz and the dance melodrama in Weimar cinema,’ A Journal of Germanic Studies, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 276-292. Poore, C 2000, The bonds of labor: German journeys to the working world, 1890-1990, Wayne State University Press, Michigan. Roth, L 1978, ‘Metropolis, the lights fantastic: semiotic analysis of lighting codes in relation to character and theme,’ Literature Film Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 342-346. Rutsky, RL 1993, ‘The mediation of technology and gender: Metropolis, Nazism, modernism,’ New German Critique, no. 60, pp.3-32. Stoicea, G 2006, ‘Re-producing the class and gender divide: Fritz Lang's Metropolis,’ Women in German Yearbook, no. 22, pp. 21-42. Ward, G 1999, ‘The secular city and the Christian corpus,’ Cultural Values, vol. 3, no. 2, pp.140-163. Webber, A 2000, ‘Canning the uncanny: the construction of visual desire in the Metropolis,’ M Minden & H Bachmann (eds.), Fritz Lang's Metropolis: cinematic visions of technology and fear, Camden House, New York, pp.251-271. Read More