Put extremely simply, Metropolis is
life. Not really – but here’s the argument: Thinking about writing a
free-for-all entry about the film Metropolis,
directed by Fritz Lang, allows my mind to wander left and then right and then
back again. Not only does this film target the generation-old topics of
religion and science, but also industrialization, history, art, culture, and
even personalization down to human cognition. Hence, the gathering of my
statement above- it delves into many aspects of life, both through explicit and
implicit film context and also through the way in which the film was handled
and has dispersed through the ages.
Here’s a quick example of this
popularization that probably actually has nothing whatsoever to do with the
actual content of my post (from a source discussing the illuminati theory):
I found very interesting the psychological perspective to this film in combination with its
perspective of industrialization and the Weimar Republic, which was the time period in which this film was
made. Despite the economic instability
and hyperinflation during the Weimar Republic in Germany, it was flourishing in
art, architecture, music, and the like (successes partly due to Charles Dawes
and Gustav Stresemann) (Why did the
Weimer…). Much of this is presented in the film- through the booming
industry and architecture depicted in the heart of the city depicted in the
film. Behind the scenes of these beautiful buildings emitting pressures of
steam and fog, however, were the individuals who worked for low pay and long
hours without complete knowledge of why they were working or what the target
was. In the movie, this consequently created a gap of separation between the
elite and the laborers, or the sacrificial lambs of this industrial feat. This
clear split between the wealthy and the workers was depicted by the
stratification of levels in this film, the clothes that each group wore, and
even by the names given to the areas.
The psychological ownership
theory acknowledges that people are more likely to take better care of and
maintain possessions that they own (Avey, 2009). Furthermore, the cognitive-affective construct
is defined as the state in which individuals feel as though the target of
ownership or a piece of that target is theirs (Avey, 2009). Many workplaces try
to instill a sense of partial ownership and responsibility for the overall
target in their employees so that they will be able to generate more efficient
outcomes. This idea of knowing about the target of the industry was completely
lacking in the laborers in this film, further widening the gap between the
industry owners and the laborers underneath. It was extremely interesting how
this huge and exaggerated gap between the two groups was mediated at the end of
this film, acknowledging that conciliation can occur. When referring to the
“heart” as this mediator though, rather than simply relating it to the sympathy
that executives should have, this could also mean instilling a passion and a
sense of ownership in the workers as well, so that they are also able to invest in and put
their “heart” in their work.
During the Weimar Republic, there was flourishing in the all types of art forms. Just as the dance and
costuming of the machine “man” served as inspiration for later pop culture, so
did the entire work as an art form serve as a basis for later science fiction
films. The historical context adds an entirely different dimension to this film
that was not as apparent in the other films we have watched, and I found this
worth appreciating.
References:
Avey, James B.; Avolio, Bruce;
Crossley, Craig; and Luthans, Fred, "Psychological Ownership: Theoretical
Extensions, Measurement, and Relation to Work Outcomes" (2009).Management
Department Faculty Publications. Paper 18.
Why did the Weimer Republic Survive? BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/weimarsurviverev1.shtml,
October 2013.
I think you have put one of the movie's main conflicts into a modern context very nicely. I had not thought of the "heart" in the movie as a sort of passion of something. The physiological ownership theory is a good comparison to the conflict of the movie. I had not heard of the theory before but as you have explained it, it seems the laborers in the movie lacked happiness in life and work because they were not given part ownership of passion for what they were doing. I feel this theory must be why people take pride in their work and feel accomplished and happy through working.
ReplyDelete