Ted Rossini

 

Metropolis = Marxism

 

Metropolis is a very interesting, but rather complex film.  Perhaps one of the more interesting things about this film is that though you miss half the film if you don’t see all the symbols, the film's point is still made.  However, it’s not until you actually look at the symbols of the film that you can see the very crucial Marxist view that the film is showing.  It is because of all of the symbols and what they represent that the views expressed in Metropolis equal Marxism.

 

The Marxist view of the film is shown right from the beginning of the film.  In the opening sequence we see a montage of machines and workers ("automatons") on their way to work.  Now if this opening sequence were just that simple one could easily argue that the film was not of Marxist nature.  However, when you look not at what is on the screen but what is being shown you can see just how Marxist it is.  The workers do not appear as simple laborers, instead the march in sync, in what appears to be an endless line, resembling drones much more than people.  As the workers reach their stations they then assume their roles as just one more part to the giant machine that is work.  

 

Another very Marxist element to the film is the robot, and possible creation of other robots.  To see the full symbolism the robots play you have to remember that the word "robot" in the Czech language (where the term comes from) actually means, "work". Robots are much more than simply scary "Sci Fi" created artificial intelligence.  The point of the robot is not to assist humans but to take the place of human laborers.  Unlike humans, robots are the ideal workers.  A human has independent thought, and tires after 10 hours of work (actually much sooner).  A robot however is, to the Capitalist, the ultimate creation, not only devoid of independent thought and ideals, but a robot never grows old or tired.

 

Another very important symbolism, both Marxist and religious, is Maria.  From the moment Maria is shown she is a leader.  When we first see her she is leading a large group of children.  These children are symbols of the workers, lost and having no choice but to trust and follow Maria.  Much of Maria’s religious symbolism feeds into this idea.  Maria being the equivalent of "The Holy Mother" shows just why the workers follow and listen to her so much.  In a sense she is the workers mother (similar to "Mother Jones") and her instructions to the workers are followed to in the same way a child listens to its mothers instructions.

 

The head of Metropolis, John Freder, is perhaps the most obvious symbolism.  Very obviously the leader of Metropolis, Freder symbolizes the Capitalist, continually exploiting and using the working class.  When his son has the dream of his marring the robot version of Maria, this is just more symbolism.  The father’s "marriage" to a robot shows the Capitalists marriage to evil.

 

The final and most important piece of Marxist symbolism is the revolution itself.  Though some interpret the revolution as almost making fun of Marxism, and workers revolutions, this is a misinterpretation.  While it is true that after the revolution the workers have only destroyed their own homes, and that in the end nothing changes, this is much more pro-Marxist than anti-Marxist.  First one has to remember this film, both now and then, was shown to a Capitalist audience, the film is not showing the good of Marxism, it shows the negative of Capitalism.  If you remember the revolution was not lead by the workers, but by the Capitalist influenced Maria Robot.  Second, it is much more powerful if instead of showing an idealistic world, "the way it could be", where the revolution triumphs, the film shows what appears to be a scary dark evil world, the way it actually is.

 

The Marxist views of this film may be some what hidden, but they are still definitely there. Some of the most important, and impacting symbols of this film, are indeed Marxist.  If one misses the Marxist themes present throughout this film, one, in a manner of speaking, misses half this film.