LA Times: The restoration of 'Metropolis'

[rollot24]

The original cut of METROPOLIS was 16 reels in length, and the running time has been estimated at 153 minutes. The 2002 restoration was 124 minutes long. The current restoration brings the running time to 147 minutes, leaving only six minutes unaccounted for. That makes it about 95 percent complete.

How many of those minutes were taken up by fps? I saw the 2002 restoration before it was released on DVD and was projected to run at about 150 minutes.

[CoffeeDan]

When I saw it theatrically, it ran just over two hours, and the DVD released later didn't seem any different.

[rollot24]

Was the one you saw with the recorded score? The one I saw was with live music so they could control the fps.
Personally, I thought at 124 minutes, with the recorded score was way too fast. It made the end chase look like the Keystone Cops.
(I know, here we go again about speeds.)

[romecapitol]

It's too bad that the newly restored METROPOLIS is video ONLY. Film houses are out-of-luck. (Sigh.)

--Art Pierce

[Dave Peterzell]

Did anybody here see the "new" version?

I saw the Moroder version when it came out in '84, just after I graduated from college. If memory serves me (and sometimes it doesn't), I saw it in the Paramount Theatre in Oakland, CA.

I thought it was plenty of fun... so much so that I've been looking for a decent copy of it. Apparently it isn't available anymore, without going through some unusual hoops.

[syd]

This is great news about the films mentioned in the New York Times: MOY SYN (1928), THE ARYAN (1916), , and THE GILDED LILY (1921). [I list the titles in case anyone is searching N-Ville for them.]
Interestingly, though, the FIAF database already has an entry for Hart's THE ARYAN, and lists the Library of Congress as the holder of a 35mm print. So I'm not so sure that this was in fact considered a lost film. Anyway, these are great discoveries.
~Roger

THE CRIMSON CITY (1928)

Would most be interested in seeing this one
since it is a survivng Warner Brothers
silent feature (most don't as mentioned previously).

It stars Myrna Loy, Conrad Nagel, John Miljan, Leila Hyams
and Anna May Wong.

I am to understand that the print is 16mm and
rather battered but digital restoration might be
a solution.

It came from the source that yielded most of the
remaining Metropolis footage. Since that footage
can be viewed one can get an idea how TCC
will look.

[Connoisseur]

Metropolis will never become a good movie, regardless what you find.

[Spiny Norman]

What about the rumour of a 9.5mm copy of Metropolis that was found in Chile? It doesn't seem anything was done with that.

[luciano]

.

[FrankFay]

Metropolis will never become a good movie, regardless what you find.

I agree that it isn't a good movie as a whole, but the best parts are sensational. The mew footage does help the story to make more sense and provides a few good scenes - and I like the double deck elevators in Josephat's apartment house.

[WaverBoy]

Metropolis will never become a good movie, regardless what you find.

There are legions who would disagree with you, including me. The (nearly) complete METROPOLIS is riveting from the first frame to the last, way more so than the earlier restoration.

[Jeff Rapsis]

I've done 'Metropolis' in live performance probably a dozen times now, and it never fails to stun an audience.

By that measure alone, it's a great film.

[azjazzman]

I've done 'Metropolis' in live performance probably a dozen times now, and it never fails to stun an audience.

By that measure alone, it's a great film.

I saw "Showgirls" when it first came out and it also stunned the audience.

That didn't make it a great film, though.

[Richard M Roberts]

Metropolis will never become a good movie, regardless what you find.

There are legions who would disagree with you, including me.

There are also legions who will agree with him, including me.

The (nearly) complete METROPOLIS is riveting from the first frame to the last, way more so than the earlier restoration.

[/quote]


Sez You. Sez me Paramount knew what it was doing when the film ran less than 90 minutes.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[WaverBoy]

Metropolis will never become a good movie, regardless what you find.

There are legions who would disagree with you, including me.

There are also legions who will agree with him, including me.

The (nearly) complete METROPOLIS is riveting from the first frame to the last, way more so than the earlier restoration.

Sez You. Sez me Paramount knew what it was doing when the film ran less than 90 minutes.


RICHARD M ROBERTS[/quote]

Sez you. I personally have a problem with studios butchering films so badly that the story neither resembles what it originally was, nor makes any sense.

[Arndt]

I saw "Showgirls" when it first came out

I'd have kept that one quiet.

[Harlett O'Dowd]

I've done 'Metropolis' in live performance probably a dozen times now, and it never fails to stun an audience.

By that measure alone, it's a great film.

I saw "Showgirls" when it first came out and it also stunned the audience.

That didn't make it a great film, though.

Sez who?

[Doug Sulpy]

I watched the blu-ray of the restored "Metropolis" a couple of weeks ago for the first time.

When we didn't have all of it (or enough of it to make that a reasonable claim) at least we could blame the film's incoherent plot on the missing footage. Now, however, it's clear that the missing footage doesn't clarify things, but simply makes the already incoherent story even more confusing.

Clearly, the film is a visual tour de force (and is very influential in that regard), but I found every other aspect of it to be laughably bad. There's not a likeable character in the bunch. The acting seemed more like it belongs in an early Griffith Biograph, or some amateur stage production. If the actors aren't hopelessly wooden, they're hopelessly over-acting. The silly ending tries to make it seem like the film is making some big point, but, really, the only point it's made is that generations of viewers can be suckered into calling it a masterpiece because of the striking imagery.

[entredeuxguerres]

... generations of viewers can be suckered into calling it a masterpiece because of the striking imagery.

Well, how about calling it a masterpiece OF "striking imagery"? Or rather, mesmerizing imagery. Brilliant, compelling plots I expect between the covers of a book...but the like of Brigitte's lurid dance I've never found therein.

[Doug Sulpy]

Personally, I'd rather have "brilliant, compelling plots" in the films that I watch rather than gyrating German women... but, hey, to each his own.

[Arndt]

Personally, I'd rather have "brilliant, compelling plots" in the films that I watch rather than gyrating German women... but, hey, to each his own.

Hmmmm...gyrating German women!

[Rodney]

The acting seemed more like it belongs in an early Griffith Biograph, or some amateur stage production. If the actors aren't hopelessly wooden, they're hopelessly over-acting. The silly ending tries to make it seem like the film is making some big point, but, really, the only point it's made is that generations of viewers can be suckered into calling it a masterpiece because of the striking imagery.

It's called "German Expressionism." Think of it like The Thief of Bagdad -- it's not supposed to be realistic acting, these are archetypes. Complaining that the actors are wooden, or move about too fast, or are showing their internal emotions in every body movement and every facial expression, is sort of like complaining that opera is silly because people just don't sing like that in real life. In fact, we go to opera because people don't sing like that in real life.

It's a different, stylized, symbolic performance. While that style is not everyone's cup of tea, it was an intentional artistic decision, like Keystone comedians wearing obviously false mustaches, that comes from a long tradition of theater and continues today in certain genres of performance. If you can learn to appreciate that art for what it is, it's a very enjoyable and ambitious movie. I'm sorry for the loss of several hours of your life. You were expecting something different.

I enjoy the film. I like the dead, resurfacing love triangle. I like the weird biblical references. I like the steamy, sweaty, dangerously ill-designed machines. I like new footage of Brigitte Helm. I like the new scene with the cab and the newspapers. I'm glad it made it to DVD, and I have nothing but praise those who put in the effort.

[entredeuxguerres]

It's called "German Expressionism." Think of it like The Thief of Bagdad -- it's not supposed to be realistic acting, these are archetypes. Complaining that the actors are wooden, or move about too fast, or are showing their internal emotions in every body movement and every facial expression, is sort of like complaining that opera is silly because people just don't sing like that in real life. In fact, we go to opera because people don't sing like that in real life.

It's a different, stylized, symbolic performance. While that style is not everyone's cup of tea, it was an intentional artistic decision, like Keystone comedians wearing obviously false mustaches, that comes from a long tradition of theater and continues today in certain genres of performance. If you can learn to appreciate that art for what it is, it's a very enjoyable and ambitious movie. I'm sorry for the loss of several hours of your life. You were expecting something different.

I enjoy the film. I like the dead, resurfacing love triangle. I like the weird biblical references. I like the steamy, sweaty, dangerously ill-designed machines. I like new footage of Brigitte Helm. I like the new scene with the cab and the newspapers. I'm glad it made it to DVD, and I have nothing but praise those who put in the effort.

Amen--what I would have said had I known enough to have said it.

[Mitch Farish]

The silly ending tries to make it seem like the film is making some big point, but, really, the only point it's made is that generations of viewers can be suckered into calling it a masterpiece because of the striking imagery.

Isn't striking imagery the point of silent movies? As far as the Heart vs. Hands business, from what I have heard that was Thea von Harbou's idea. But thankfully Lang's "striking imagery" overrides any creaky moral platitudes and makes the movie a true masterpiece.

[Doug Sulpy]

It's called "German Expressionism." Think of it like The Thief of Bagdad -- it's not supposed to be realistic acting, these are archetypes.

Hey, I'm glad you enjoy the film.

But your argument reminds me of the excuse made for abstract expressionism ("it's not meant to be realistic!"). Well, okay... but that also doesn't make it good, either.

And, Mitch, I don't agree that "striking imagery" is the point of silent movies. Why should it be, any more than sound movies? The "point" of all movies should be to involve one in the plot and characters. I'm not saying that set design isn't important – it surely is, as it helps draw you into the film's world... but once you're there, then what? In the case of "Metropolis," there's pretty much nothing else of value except the imagery.

[Mitch Farish]

But your argument reminds me of the excuse made for abstract expressionism ("it's not meant to be realistic!"). Well, okay... but that also doesn't make it good, either.

It's true that not all "expressionism" is good, but you can't dismiss it as being all bad either. The very unreality of expressionism is a useful tool in telling a story set in an unreal world. As far as striking imagery being the point of silent film, all story and character explication in the silents - whether comedic, epic, or futuristic - needs to be carried by images. In my opinion the more "striking" the better.

[Richard M Roberts]

But your argument reminds me of the excuse made for abstract expressionism ("it's not meant to be realistic!"). Well, okay... but that also doesn't make it good, either.

It's true that not all "expressionism" is good, but you can't dismiss it as being all bad either. The very unreality of expressionism is a useful tool in telling a story set in an unreal world. As far as striking imagery being the point of silent film, all story and character explication in the silents - whether comedic, epic, or futuristic - needs to be carried by images. In my opinion the more "striking" the better.

Well, the images need to have something worthwhile to carry, or they're just pretty pictures without a point,and that's when too many of them at once becomes boring.

As somebody once said, "Movies are a visual medium, but we still spend so damn much time talking about them....."

And at least they could have given us MORE footage of Brigitte Helm gyrating, all the fancy show-off cutting and camera angles get in the way. When Asta Nielson gyrates in LIVETS STORME, at least you get a nice healthy chunk without an edit.


RICHARD M ROBERTS

[luciano]

The silly ending tries to make it seem like the film is making some big point, but, really, the only point it's made is that generations of viewers can be suckered into calling it a masterpiece because of the striking imagery.

I respect your opinion, and any others towards Metropolis, but I've always found that the underlying plot comes through very strongly every time I watch this film. What Metropolis stands for is machine taking over man--this makes even more sense when you consider that this film was made in an era when technology was rapidly developing. And quite frankly, I find the film has become slightly more brilliant today, since it ended up predicting the future in some ways. Metropolis has survived into the 21'st Century where workaholics are stuck to their computers and phones, little realizing that their social skills are going down the drain.

As for the acting, it is true that it seems very melodramatic and crude, but that is common in expressionist films. However I should add that I find Metropolis to be more of an objectivity film rather than an expressionist film.

[Doug Sulpy]

But your argument reminds me of the excuse made for abstract expressionism ("it's not meant to be realistic!"). Well, okay... but that also doesn't make it good, either.

It's true that not all "expressionism" is good, but you can't dismiss it as being all bad either. The very unreality of expressionism is a useful tool in telling a story set in an unreal world. As far as striking imagery being the point of silent film, all story and character explication in the silents - whether comedic, epic, or futuristic - needs to be carried by images. In my opinion the more "striking" the better.

I agree with you about German expressionism in films. Clearly something like "Caligari" benefits greatly from the visuals. My comment, though, was referring to abstract expressionism in the visual arts (painters such as Jackson Pollock).

[alostworld192593]

Has anyone heard that a print of the original Channing Pollock edit has been posted on YouTube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcKc257aE9E" target="_blank

It's a print from Australia's National Film Archive. The soundtrack is comprised of music from MegaMan games. It's a weird choice of accompaniment, but it's better than no film at all...