watched the criterion disks of these in the last week. i’d seen “m” a long, long time ago and if you can believe it i’d never seen “metropolis”.
“m” first: i can’t remember what my original response to “m” had been–i wasn’t a very engaged film-viewer then and in any case was probably too aware of its status to register a genuine response. watching it now i was struck by all the things that make it such a landmark film–the use of voiceover, the use of music as narrative device, the camera-angles, all the noir devices that would soon become mainstays of the genre etc. etc.. but i was most struck by the fact that exactly because it has been such an influential film these things don’t really have an effect anymore (not on me anyway). now that every crap film and television show uses all these devices it seems, to me anyway, hard to register “m” as anything but a historically significant film–it didn’t surprise me the way “the testament of dr. mabuse” did. i’m interested to hear your takes on this both in relation to this specific film and in general. (by the way, i can see what welles took from lang for “citizen kane”, but again i have to say that while i recognize “kane” as a historically significant film the welles that remains fresh for me is “touch of evil”.)
“metropolis” on the other hand is staggering. its visual impact is so far ahead of most of what’s being done even now. “sky captain and the world of tomorrow”, “bladerunner” etc. –you can see everything they take from “metropolis” but i don’t know if they surpass it. the criterion restoration is excellent (i’d given up on watching an earlier crap version of the movie years ago because it just looked so bad) with new intertitles describing the irretrievable scenes, and a remastered audio track. one question for the film students among us: what have scholars made of the politics of this film? it seems very much a product of the germany that was about see hitler take power and seems very much to participate in an anti-semitic narrative (rotwang the inventor is the real enemy and is marked by a star of david, if i’m not mistaken). i know that lang’s wife (who wrote the novel) was pro-nazi and remained in germany when he fled for the states. i realize i’m coming 80 years too late to what is doubtless one of the most written-about films of all time so forgive me these naive observations and questions.
I tend to agree with your comments about “M”. I also saw it recently, and was underwelmed by it, though I could also see where so many other films – and genres – had taken inspiration from it. Still, it’s so much fun watching Peter Lorre. From this, to his drunken roles where he refused to learn lines in Roger Corman’s films, he was a creepy blast.
Lorre sells it for me. And I guess I kind of shiver, still, when I watch–besides the performance, there’s an energy and a style and a sophistication that seems not only prescient (of all those films to follow in Lang’s footsteps) but also still quite effective. It’s been a while, but… Remember that discussion we had about Million Dollar Baby, especially the stuff about Eastwood’s competence? Lang is one of those directors whose confidence about and control of imagery makes almost every film I’ve seen by him a pleasure. (Robert Wise is another who comes to mind.) And, like “Kane,” I’m always struck how I’m NOT struck by the film’s datedness. (“Mabuse” hit me the same way.)
mike, i didn’t mean to suggest that i found either “m” or “citizen kane” to be dated. only that it seems to me that the “first time seeing this in the movies” effect can perhaps only be an intellectual one at this point. that is to say, you have to tell/remind yourself that you are seeing/hearing things that hadn’t happened before–it is a historian’s sense of appreciation of significance, rather than aesthetic surprise. “mabuse” and “touch of evil” (which i would group together for the purposes of this analogy) aren’t “advances in cinema” and so may play for audiences today not very much differently than they did for their contemporary audiences, and may strangely enough continue to aesthetically surprise us precisely because they haven’t been as influential as their makers’ opuses (opi?). maybe i am saying they’re “dated”–but not in the usual pejorative sense, and only formally anyway, not narratively.
Nah, I get you. It’s an important distinction, but I think I’m noting a different response–I *am* surprised by “Kane,” by how affecting and effective I find it. (I realize that every time I teach it.) “M,” well it’s been a while, so I’m not sure–but last time I saw it, I do recall a flash of aesthetic pleasure. Although perhaps I am just going through my change.