2.24.2009

Metropolis and its Discontents

[This the other of two essays about Metropolis I wrote for my class on film. It is of a different style than my others. There are spoilers.]

Metropolis, a film about political and economic unrest made following the German depression, is often seen in the context of its historical time period. This is an apt analysis, but it is often blinded by certain predispositions regarding the work of Karl Marx and the imminent fruition of his philosophies: the spectre of communism that haunted Europe. But this is the wrong way to approach this masterpiece from Fritz Lang. It is important to keep The Communist Manifesto in mind, as it was an influential document, but to ignore later works by other great thinkers is to miss out on some of the real meanings in Metropolis.

The work is called Civilization and its Discontents, a treatise countering The Communist Manifesto in philosophy and psychology, written by the man himself, Sigmund Freud. This book discusses such issues as our societal qualms and their psychological roots. And though it was written a whole two years after Metropolis was released, it is nevertheless relevant in understanding the film. The ideas present in Freud’s work hint at many of the themes present in the film.

One thing Freud discusses is the futility of revolution. He effectively says that you can revolt all you want, but it will not change the general malaise affecting the world at large. A revolution will simply empower new tyrants and disenfranchise old ones. This theme is probably the most prevalent in discussing Metropolis. Maria speaks as the future voice of Freud when she persists at telling them that a revolution will only end in blood poorly spent. They will be giving Joh Fredersen (the ruler of Metropolis) a reason to defend himself against them. It behooves them to refrain from action, though they are unable to see this during their times of stress. But she remains convincing enough, promising a mediator, what Freud would say is the only possible cure for the sickness with sociological symptoms. And in the end, this is the solution: Freder joins the hands of Grot, the head worker, and his father. In this act of symbolism, he joins more than hands: he joins hope also, hopes of a world without unrest, a world without a great schism between what are effectively castes. But more than that, they both hope for a society free of its discontents.

His major thesis in the book revolves around the tension between the individual and the civilization. Out of this tension spring forth all evils and discontents that we experience. In order for civilization to work, one must not care about individual success, as this limits the progress of the society in question. Yet at the same time, we all have a desire to succeed, the identical desire that stimulates any creation of society. But this, in turn, brings us down, as it kills the society. So when the workers stop acting as one collective group and start thinking as if they have rights as citizens, they begin to forget their responsibilities to the city. These responsibilities are embodied by the children and the effect that the revolution has on them. They are left behind, forgotten, while the workers rally and rebel. In the mean time, the machines are broken and the children are almost killed as a result. The same happens when they forget their role in creating a civilization: each must hold his own, must do his own job. One cannot compare one’s own success, or lack thereof, to someone else, this only breeds jealousy and corruption, which result in the destruction that almost was in Metropolis.

So when you watch this and feel cheated by the ending, (which admittedly, I did upon the first, second and third watches) remember that it is not a Marxist film. It seems that way, and we want it to be that way, but it is not. It is a film about the impossibility of revolt, and about the general tensions present in society. These tensions are exaggerated by time, as it is a dystopian film set far in the future, but they are no less powerful. This film shows that the result of a evolution is simply more terror, and that only through seemingly naïve and peaceful mediation is change possible.

Metropolis and the Hero's Journey

[This is one of two essays about Metropolis I wrote for my class on film. It is of a different style than my others. There are spoilers.]

In Metropolis by Fritz Lang, the main character, Freder, begins a journey into the underworld of the titular city. His journey resembles the hero’s journey as depicted in Joseph Campbell’s monomyth theory. First, Freder starts out as a socially ignorant, blinded by his silver spoon, son of the ruler of Metropolis. He then has a great experience with the M-Machine, one that forever changes the way in which he perceives his world. This experience is preceded by his introduction to Maria, the only sensible female in the film, and the only one keeping the citizens from revolting. She opens his eyes to the fact that his “siblings” are the children of Metropolis. He realizes that one day he will be their ruler, and yet he knows nothing of them. His naïveté is advantageous here, where it still allows him to actually care about their experiences, something his father has long since forgotten.

This is all similar to the first stage in the hero’s journey. He voluntarily proceeds to the threshold of adventure, where he encounters the M-Machine. He survives the experience, but it forces him to act upon his vision of Moloch. His father tries to console him, but it is of no avail, as Freder has been forever changed. He now proceeds into the kingdom of the dark, replacing worker 11811. He is tested by fatigue, and relieved by the end of shift. He even receives the magical powers that many heroes receive, though his goes by a different name. He is given the power to love when he comes in contact with Maria. She also gives him, implicitly through her pontifications, the path that he should take. She assists him by showing him not only the way out of the hell-hole, but also the way to fix the hell-hole.

He also experiences a triumph similar to that of the hero, as his apotheosis raises him to the level of mediator. His existence is the most archetypal at this point as he obtains the same degree of perfection as the Messianic hero, or the Herculean hero. He is visible here in his true form, that of the pure savior of the world previously unknown to him. As he makes his return to the worker’s city in order to declare his newfound identity, he discovers that Maria has changed, and the workers are on the verge of a violent revolution.

This, too, fits into the structure of the hero’s journey. Compare it to Frodo’s return to the Shire, Jesus’ return to Jerusalem, Simba’s return to the Pride Lands, or Neo’s return to the Matrix. The situation is filled with tension, and it finally breaks when someone does introduce Freder, though not on his terms. They realize that he is the ruler’s son, and that he is only there to spy on them. He becomes the final catalyst for the revolt, and they storm past him to destroy the machines.

As they destroy the machines, Freder is trapped in the underground city as it begins to flood with the real Maria and the children of Metropolis, those previously introduced as his brothers and sisters. He escapes from the confines of sure death, saving the children and Maria, and comes full circle, having to fight off the actual villain who is behind much of the struggle of the film. Following the rooftop battle, Freder confronts his father and the workers, and with his new identity as the mediator shows them that the only way for head and hands to work together is with the heart. This heart is the symbol of the love that became his special power in defeating the evils.

2.11.2009

American Beauty and the Demons of Suburbia.

[There will be spoilers. Although, I am of the opinion that only a bad film can be ruined by spoilers. A good film can be watched over and over, and exert the same, if not more, power over you.]

Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is stuck. He is stuck in the self-perpetuated ennui that comes with compromise. He has sacrificed that which is good for that which is easy, and is reaping those consequences at the beginning of American Beauty. His compromise, though it is present in even his moral decisions stems from one choice he made many years ago: to move to the suburbs. This move can be compared to a retreat, which in war is only useful when accompanied by a fight in the near future. Otherwise, it is not much different from giving up. Unfortunately the suburbs swallows us up, proclaiming from the hilltops its glories while at the same time stripping us of our humanity so that, like an addict, we lack the willpower to continue the uphill battle. Lester Burnham, through a collusion of chance and gall, picks up his weapons and starts to fight. In doing so, he discovers the titular beauty that seems to be missing from this world, and finishes the film with a moment of pure joy.

Lester delivers one of the greatest opening monologues on film as he explains, in an extremely self-deprecating fashion, the meaninglessness of his life. He informs us that he will die, but that this matters little, as he feels dead already. Then he tells us that he has lost something, something very core to the human experience, something that breathes vitality into everything we do. Although he may not know what this is, I would argue that this missing piece is Identity. He has nothing to represent himself but his clothes and his house and his job and his car. He is disoriented because he doesn’t even know who he is. This is a direct result of his compromise. The first thing you give up when you move to the suburbs to begin a “normal” life if your passions and dreams. These are the things that fill your soul to the brim, that give you hope, that help you appreciate the beauty around you. In a non-constricting way, these may even define you. I am not me because of what I do; I am me because of what I yearn for with every ounce of my soul. Lester Burnham gave up his dreams so that he could fit into a cookie-cutter world designed to put us all in little boxes and have us come out all the same.

The catalyst in Lester’s renewed vigor is a boy named Ricky Fitts (Wes Bentley), who not only gives Lester some pot, but introduces him to a certain way of approaching the world. When Ricky and Lester are smoking a joint outside of a catering venue, and Ricky is threatened with being fired, he quits. He lives by a certain code: that you should never abide by the rules that others set for you. His dreams are still fresh in his mind, and one day he might accomplish them. He is willing to even cut himself off from his family in order to be himself, and not subscribe to the societal concept of the norm. In one scene with his girlfriend and Lester’s daughter, Jane (Thora Birch), they admit their eccentricities and decide to move away. Jane’s best friend Angela Hayes (Mena Suvari), petrified of ever being ordinary, still rejects them, because she, too, has been sucked into the vacuum of suburbia. Ricky Fitts, almost a Messianic figure in this way, comes to heal their collective blindness, to let them out of the shackles that they put on their feet, never realizing it was for eternity. He is Hercules and they are Prometheus, being disemboweled by their insecurities and mediocrities. He allows them to appreciate what is actually good in this world. He shows them it is not the cubicle or the opinions of friends, that it is only what it is your heart, in your gut, even in your soul.

Lester also develops an infatuation with Angela, after seeing her perform a cheerleading routine. Nubile, although still childlike, we can almost see through her lavish sex stories told to give herself importance, to fit into the compromise. She also forces a change in Lester, as he begins to work out in order to achieve a sort of sexual gratification that he hasn’t seen in years. She gives him something to fight for. When they finally come together, we the audience can barely watch. We never wanted them to actually have sex, just talk about it. But it leads to the most sublime moment in the entire film. Angela comes out with her virginity, and Lester wakes up and realizes that she is more than just physically attractive. She possesses a beauty that often passes by, leaving us in its dust. He recognizes her innocence, her naïveté, and sees her potential. He may be stuck in the cycle of ennui, but she can still get out, as Ricky has and Jane will. There is hope, and this changes everything.

When he recognizes her beauty, he looks around and sees it everywhere. It’s like one of those magic eye stereograms, once you see the image, you can’t stop seeing it. He used to see through a glass darkly, now his vision is pure, he can see through a lens that allows no flaw. And he realizes that his life was not without joy. He has had this joy that permeates his soul now for as long as he can remember. He was just unable to see it through the compromise. He broke free and saw the love for his daughter and his wife, however bitchy they both are. And this understanding, this great realization served as his psychopomp. He was carried to the underworld bathed in the perfect happiness he had discovered therein. He had found his identity.

I leave with this poem from Langston Hughes:

Hold fast to dreams
For if dreams die
Life is a broken-winged bird
That cannot fly
Hold fast to dreams
For when dreams go
Life is a barren field
Frozen with snow