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.