Dystopian texts subvert ethical standards, extrapolating on contextual fears to present inter-textual perspectives on harrowing political landscapes. Fritz Lang’s Metropolis (1927) and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) value freedom and self-determination by positioning responders to invest emotionally in the plight of individuals. Metropolis represents an industrial cityscape to convey the division of labour in the Weimar Republic and the need for the “heart,” characterised through Freder. 1984 reacts to post WW2 concerns about the rise of totalitarianism, using the prose fiction form to satirise government intrusion into private life. It is portrayed through Winston’s narrative point of view as he resists the all-pervading authority of Big Brother. Both texts explore contextual fears about science and the influence of the state but the resolutions leave us with differing inter-textual perspectives about the nature of the change required. Metropolis depicts a stratified society, critiquing the greed of corporations and government in the 20th century. Lang’s set replicates the New York skyline, underscoring his fascination with the avaricious culture of America. The pyramidal inter-title introducing “the Club of the Sons, with its lecture halls and libraries” is followed by aerial shots of its monumental iconography to symbolise the limitless possibilities of machine production. The grand vision of prosperity, however, results in the formation of a capitalist elite under the autocratic rule of Fredersen. His detached concentration as he paces the executive room of accounts and stocks echoes the profit driven undercurrents within Weimar’s wealthy echelons and his dismissal of Josephat reveals his insensitivity as Lang focuses on a close up of his impervious stare. The symbol of “Moloch” further embodies the corruption of the system, heightened by the temple imagery and use of shadows in contrast to Freder’s clutching of his heart. The stylistic features of German Expressionism intensify the criticism of a political landscape which prioritises commercial imperatives above human welfare. 1984 moves beyond Lang’s vision of social repression to include a manipulation of history, memory, and time through Winston’s struggle to reaffirm his individuality. The circular logic “who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past” underscores the central motif of the “mutability of the past” as totalitarian ideologies extinguish all emotion and purpose. It relegates Winston metaphorically to “a lonely ghost uttering a truth that no one would hear.” His diary becomes highly symbolic of his desperation to retain his “human heritage” that is also evident in his longing to engage with the memory of his mother, “Come back! Give your sister back her chocolate!” These vague, deeply emotive memories are related to the devastation of 1940’s London through the accumulation; “piles of rubble everywhere… gangs of youths… intermittent machine gunfire.” Orwell laments the heartrending
…show more content…
He parodies the way “one makes a revolution to establish the dictatorship” in O’Brien’s dialogue, indicating that after WW2 the deep conflict between state and public interests was exposed. The sacrosanct legacy of Winston’s mother “she had died loving him,” is tragically dismissed as a “false memory” to demonstrate the extreme degeneration where even the “freedom to say 2+2=4” is obliterated by an ironic “love” of Big Brother. Winston’s necessary subversion of government control is paralleled in the workers’ demand for change in Metropolis. However, Robot Maria’s rebellion is shown as counter-productive, alluding to the 1918 upheaval and revolution of Germany which ironically left major political institutions intact. Ultimately, in the motif “The mediator between the head and the hands must be the heart” the compromise involves a stable regime with compassion as a basis for social harmony. To a large extent the film reflects Germany’s authoritarian traditions and the distrust of the Weimar democracy but in light of 1984, the oblique aerial shot of the workers’ re-organisation into a hierarchical structure is an unsettling precursor for more extreme forms of repression. Metropolis and 1984 offer complex insights into the misuse of power and its destruction of compassion and individuality in their respective contexts.
Metropolis and 1984 feature protagonists who appeal to similar human elements; compassion, freedom, love. Metropolis constructs an efficiency driven capitalist society while 1984, a world of totalitarian control, to explore the complex interplay between scientific discoveries, the spiritual outlook of humanity and the nature of power and revolution. Their corresponding endings reveal very different political agendas, which give us insight into their differing
He parodies the way “one makes a revolution to establish the dictatorship” in O’Brien’s dialogue, indicating that after WW2 the deep conflict between state and public interests was exposed. The sacrosanct legacy of Winston’s mother “she had died loving him,” is tragically dismissed as a “false memory” to demonstrate the extreme degeneration where even the “freedom to say 2+2=4” is obliterated by an ironic “love” of Big Brother. Winston’s necessary subversion of government control is paralleled in the workers’ demand for change in Metropolis. However, Robot Maria’s rebellion is shown as counter-productive, alluding to the 1918 upheaval and revolution of Germany which ironically left major political institutions intact. Ultimately, in the motif “The mediator between the head and the hands must be the heart” the compromise involves a stable regime with compassion as a basis for social harmony. To a large extent the film reflects Germany’s authoritarian traditions and the distrust of the Weimar democracy but in light of 1984, the oblique aerial shot of the workers’ re-organisation into a hierarchical structure is an unsettling precursor for more extreme forms of repression. Metropolis and 1984 offer complex insights into the misuse of power and its destruction of compassion and individuality in their respective contexts.
Metropolis and 1984 feature protagonists who appeal to similar human elements; compassion, freedom, love. Metropolis constructs an efficiency driven capitalist society while 1984, a world of totalitarian control, to explore the complex interplay between scientific discoveries, the spiritual outlook of humanity and the nature of power and revolution. Their corresponding endings reveal very different political agendas, which give us insight into their differing