1. Metropolis (1927), dir. Fritz Lang
Saturday, 6 January 2007 21:59As for the books I read this year, I'm also going to record the films I see. First up is Fritz Lang's Metropolis, which I saw in the 2-hour 75th anniversary restored version, on a DVD burnt for me by my Dad.
Despite the icon used here, this is actually the first time I've seen this film. Previously, I had only seen the anime remake, Metoroporisu (2001), which is absolutely stunning in its own way, but so different from Metropolis that it's almost better viewed as being simply creatively inspired by the original, rather than actually being a remake of it. I have wanted to see the original for years, though (hence the icon). I've read quite a lot about it online, and was pretty certain I would love it.
Thankfully, the film entirely lived up to my expectations. I can really understand now why it is considered so important, particularly in terms of cinematic style and techniques. Its scale and scope are so ahead of its time that it often felt like I was watching a much more modern film that was merely imitating the stylistic character of 1920s cinematography - like the film of Call of Cthulhu which I saw recently. I suppose the real message there is that I shouldn't complacently underestimate what people were capable of doing in the 1920s - as it is very easy to do, especially in the context of a genre that was relatively new at the time.
High points included Brigitte Helm's magnificent portrayal of both the Real and the False Marias - histrionic, of course, in keeping with the style of the time, but showing a great range, and doing a marvellous job of bringing out the Virgin Mary and the Whore of Babylon inherent in the two characters. I am astonished to learn now from the IMDb both that a) it was her first ever film role and that b) she gave up her film career only eight years later - partly due to the coming of Nazi Germany, but obviously not entirely, as she had already been offered roles in America before then. I also enjoyed the use of allegorical visions - for instance, Feder seeing the Heart-Machine as Moloch the destroyer, the dial he is labouring over turning into a gigantic ten-hour clock to represent the tortuous length of his shift, or the montage of lustful eyes which appears around the False Maria as she dances seductively in the night-club - very much à la Josephine Baker.
Perhaps most importantly, though, I'm now in a much better position to appreciate other works of cinema for having seen this: 1984, for instance, almost any Frankenstein movie, or Dark City. I feel like I've been handed a missing piece of jigsaw puzzle - though of course the output of human creativity is so great that no-one could ever hope to see the whole picture.

Despite the icon used here, this is actually the first time I've seen this film. Previously, I had only seen the anime remake, Metoroporisu (2001), which is absolutely stunning in its own way, but so different from Metropolis that it's almost better viewed as being simply creatively inspired by the original, rather than actually being a remake of it. I have wanted to see the original for years, though (hence the icon). I've read quite a lot about it online, and was pretty certain I would love it.
Thankfully, the film entirely lived up to my expectations. I can really understand now why it is considered so important, particularly in terms of cinematic style and techniques. Its scale and scope are so ahead of its time that it often felt like I was watching a much more modern film that was merely imitating the stylistic character of 1920s cinematography - like the film of Call of Cthulhu which I saw recently. I suppose the real message there is that I shouldn't complacently underestimate what people were capable of doing in the 1920s - as it is very easy to do, especially in the context of a genre that was relatively new at the time.
High points included Brigitte Helm's magnificent portrayal of both the Real and the False Marias - histrionic, of course, in keeping with the style of the time, but showing a great range, and doing a marvellous job of bringing out the Virgin Mary and the Whore of Babylon inherent in the two characters. I am astonished to learn now from the IMDb both that a) it was her first ever film role and that b) she gave up her film career only eight years later - partly due to the coming of Nazi Germany, but obviously not entirely, as she had already been offered roles in America before then. I also enjoyed the use of allegorical visions - for instance, Feder seeing the Heart-Machine as Moloch the destroyer, the dial he is labouring over turning into a gigantic ten-hour clock to represent the tortuous length of his shift, or the montage of lustful eyes which appears around the False Maria as she dances seductively in the night-club - very much à la Josephine Baker.
Perhaps most importantly, though, I'm now in a much better position to appreciate other works of cinema for having seen this: 1984, for instance, almost any Frankenstein movie, or Dark City. I feel like I've been handed a missing piece of jigsaw puzzle - though of course the output of human creativity is so great that no-one could ever hope to see the whole picture.
no subject
Date: Saturday, 6 January 2007 23:10 (UTC)no subject
Date: Saturday, 6 January 2007 23:19 (UTC)no subject
Date: Saturday, 6 January 2007 23:32 (UTC)I've also got a copy of Spione which remains unwatched for much the same reason.
After I've braved these two, I must buy a copy of The Cabinet of Dr Caligari.
Incidentally, having noted your Roman connections, I've been dying to ask whether you like Viaggio in Italia?
no subject
Date: Saturday, 6 January 2007 23:53 (UTC)I'm afraid the simple answer to that is that I don't know, because I haven't seen it! I would like to though - it sounds like it would be right up my street. I take it you'd recommend it, then?
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 00:06 (UTC)However, the film shows the Bay of Naples in all its glory, with particular emphasis on the most prominent archaeological sites. I'd just returned from my second trip to Pompeii when I saw that the BFI had released a new print of the film, and I loved it; I watch it often. I remember seeing the scene where a body is uncovered in Pompeii when I was very young, but couldn't for the life of me work out what the film was. It didn't help that I thought Katharine Hepburn was the star rather than Ingrid Bergman...
no subject
Date: Saturday, 6 January 2007 23:59 (UTC)It's a film I've love to see at the hyde park with a piano accomliament but I miss it each time it happens. I'm not sure the version with queen doing the soundtrack is quite the same.
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 10:34 (UTC)I'd absolutely love to see it on the big screen, though, so if they do it again at the Hyde Park, I'm there! I first saw Nosferatu that way, and it was ace!
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 00:17 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 10:46 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 12:26 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 12:39 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 12:45 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 09:31 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 10:47 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 11:37 (UTC)Have you ever seen M? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0022100/ that is a truly wonderful piece of cinematography and a social commentary. I did my disseration on cyborg theory and covered metropolis extensively in it. As you say you can see how the film has influenced so many other films it's unbelivable.
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 11:48 (UTC)Don't suppose you have a copy of it, do you? If so, might I be a bit cheeky and suggest perhaps coming round to your place one time to see it? Often I don't really get much chance to talk to you when we're out clubbing, as you're obviously busy helping to run things, so it would be nice to have an evening where we could chat a bit more. I'd certainly like to hear more about your dissertation, for a start. :)
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 16:16 (UTC)xx
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 16:29 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 17:17 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 18:02 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 11:53 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 16:17 (UTC)no subject
Date: Monday, 8 January 2007 10:39 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 11:46 (UTC)I did see the Moroder version on the telly a few years back an'all- part of it had been colourised in a 1980s kinda way. I think technology has moved on quite a bit since then..
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 11:53 (UTC)I've read bad things about the '80s Moroder version online! Although some people really like it, too - just goes to show that there's someone for everything!
no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 12:04 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 7 January 2007 12:40 (UTC)no subject
Date: Sunday, 14 January 2007 03:40 (UTC)I've only seen the Giorgio Moroder version of Metropolis (and, despite what some think, that isn't Queen on the soundtrack - Freddie Mercury does sing one track (which he co-wrote), but that's it). However, Queen did use clips from Metropolis and visual references to it in the video to Radio Ga Ga, which was done shortly after IIRC. As it happens, that video was my introduction to Queen, and I've never looked back. :)
But in any case, I thought that version of Metropolis (at the time the most complete version there was) was great, though I wasn't too sure about the colour tints used (not true colourisation, just a single colour for the entire screen). But, like gylfinir, I've had the new version on DVD for about 18 months and haven't got round to watching it yet! But I will. I imagine I'll enjoy it more now (it was about 15 years ago, and even then I could see how seminal it was).
And then I'll probably have to get a copy of M. :D
no subject
Date: Sunday, 14 January 2007 13:48 (UTC)Wow, that sounds really weird! Why would anyone do that? *is puzzled*
no subject
Date: Wednesday, 17 January 2007 01:38 (UTC)Just in case I wasn't clear, I don't of course mean that the whole screen is a single block of colour with no picture, rather that within a scene everything is tinted, like sepia pictures, except with the colour differing from scene to scene; blue one scene, then yellow the next, etc. I suppose by matching the colour to the mood and/or location of the scene it could be an artistic device, but I don't remember if that was the case.