What are the narrative expectations of the spectator by the end of Act 1?
- Campbell, Strauss, and Propp
The first act of Metropolis presents the coming themes of the overall narrative and allusion of plot: Marxist class struggle between the lower and upper divisions and thematic binary oppositions (Levi Strauss) that establish the plot conflicts; hands versus head, old versus new, man versus machine, and among other interpretations. In relation to Vladimir Propp, all narratives must have a 'lack' in which the plot revolves around and the hero seeks to improve or change. In Metropolis, this character is Freder and his function within the narrative is expected to the spectator by the end of act 1.
Freder is the undeniable protagonist of the story and is considered the defined hero in relation to Vladimir Propp's character functions. However, the perspective remains in control of the spectator, which helps in making Metropolis' narrative somewhat unestablished with reliance placed on symbolism, iconography, and allegory of the industrial, futuristic, and political anxieties of 1920s German society. This lack of a cohesive storyline however strengthens the dystopian setting of the film, making the hallucinatory and nightmarish visuals that carry strong themes and, in context of the 1920s production, projected the uncertain future of German society, the focus for the spectator. Freder as the hero places the narrative in context of Joseph Campbell's 'Hero's Journey', of which parts can be applied to Metropolis during act 1. For example, the opening montage of inexplicable machinery buzzing in energy edited before the drudgery of the anonymous workers - walking in a synchronised and stylised pattern reflective of a mechanical unit rather than of the individuals - establishes to the spectator the unequal distribution of power between technology and those who maintain it; visually, the shots are separated through editing as they are through activity, pace, and sound even though they share the same function in society to service the upper class. Those who own the technology and thus the workers are shown in the vast expanse of the upper city where Freder is leisurely competing in sports. This is the 'normal world', and Maria entering the 'eternal gardens' where assumed prostitutes frolic around with Freder immediately sparks the 'call to adventure' as she, along with the worker's children, cross their own threshold into the 'unknown world' above ground. This is the crucial catalyst for Freder's character function as the hero. He pursues Maria, ultimately entering the underground levels of the workers shown to be in choreographed movement to the rhythm of the machines: Freder has crossed his threshold to the 'unknown world', and the narrative unfolds.
The next stage of Campbell's monomyth is the 'refusal of call', which one could argue is Freder's vision of 'Moloch' - a heavily symbolic representation of the exploitative nature of the machines controlling the workers as they trudge in unison into the mouth of this Biblical, devil-like God to whom children were sacrificed. This tells the spectator of Freder's heroic role within the film as he expressively reacts in horror to this sight, a 'refusal' of what he is seeing until the vision disappears and work continues unsympathetically. He now pursues to bring attention to the exploitation of the workers to his father, Fredersen (the 'head' of Metropolis) and seeks to experience their struggle. This leads the spectator to expect Freder to be the mediator within the narrative and bridge these opposing forces -head versus hands - together. This nightmarish Moloch scene is an example of Levi Strauss' 'binary opposites', in which man versus machine is primitively represented; this is the first example of the religious (and therefore primitive) versus the futuristic dystopia, which is shown again as Maria tells 'The Story of Babel' to the workers in the underground, ancient catacombs at the end of act 1. This story is the largest foreshadowing of what the spectator expects of the remaining narrative: the 'hands' built the tower of Babel conceived by the 'heads' yet 'people spoke the same language but could not understand each other', leading the hands to revolt by destroying the tower. This is an in-story allegory for the narrative, making the tower of Babel parallel to the city of Metropolis, and as Fredersen overhears this story and of Maria's preaching, 'the mediator between the head and hands must be the heart!', with mad scientist Rotwang, he seeks to replace Maria with a machine doppelgänger to 'destroy their belief in this woman'. This leads the spectator to expect a conflict between the workers and this man-machine, fulfilling the binary opposite of man versus machine. Therefore, although a revolt is expected, the spectator may be uncertain of who this revolt will benefit as the man-machine Maria will seek to bring havoc and destruction to the workers on Fredersen's orders.
Campbell's narrative theory leads the spectator to expect challenges and temptation facing Freder, and yet the spectator is shown temptation of the worker 11811 (Georgy) who switches lifestyle with Freder, suggesting a representation of the lower class to be weak, susceptible to the sin of temptation, and easily swayed by the things they desire which, for the spectator, foreshadows their own destruction as they are driven by (the man-machine) Maria's words of 'death to the machines' in act 3. By the end of act 1, Freder has faced no real challenge except realising and accepting his father's evil while switching lives with 11811. For example, the shot of Freder moving the dials on what represents a clock face - with a symbolic overlay of the 10-hour worker clock - as he screams out 'father, father- will 10 hours never end!'. In addition, one could argue that there is no 'rebirth' of Freder as his role as mediator and his motivations do not change - the only potential 'rebirth' or transformation of Freder is after he hears Maria preach 'the mediator between the head and hands must be the heart!', realising that he must fulfil that role in order to bring social change for the workers. Therefore, this lack of character development doesn't place Freder as a traditional hero, and rather a heroic symbol the narrative needs to function.
However, with placing Freder as the Proppian Hero, there must be his villain. In theory, this is the person whom the hero 'fights' with - yet there is no established enemy of Freder's during act one except perhaps his father, Fredersen, who replies to Freder's concern: 'and where are the people, father, whose hands built your city?', with 'where they belong'. This is an example of character conflict and Freder distances himself from Fredersen, yet Freder acts as his own dispatcher by finding out - through his decent into the workers level - of his fathers evils in exploiting the lower class, treating them as replaceable parts of his machine, thus leading Freder to reject his upper-class lifestyle and therefore his father. However, the role of the villain is alluded to change for the spectator as Rotwang captures Maria in order to give her likeness to the man-machine. As Freder has established his admiration and love for Maria, it is expected from the spectator to see a conflict between Freder and Rotwang in the remaining 2 acts.
Comments
Post a Comment