Transcribe
Translate
Metropolis, v. 1, issue 1, 1939
Page 5
More information
digital collection
archival collection guide
transcription tips
Revival Reactions _______________ PAUL FREEHAFER: Here is the information on METROPOLIS (it deserves both capitals and underlining) as requested. Firstly: Yes, this is the firstime I saw it. May I add, with decent luck it won't be the lastime either. Secondly: From here on my reactions must be divided into two parts: a) The technical side of the picture, and b) the acting. Technically it far exceeded my expectations, great tho they were. In my humble opinion even the marvelous scenes in Things to Come were not equal to the effects achieved here, despite the improvements in camera technique in the intervening years. But I had completely forgotten the unrestrained overacting prevalent in the silent films, and was shocked, horrified, and amused. (More ham than the Chicago stock-yards.) So, balancing these two factors in my mind, I place Metropolis second in my list of favorite scientificinemas, high because of its marvelous settings and laboratory scenes, below Things to Come because of its poor acting and over-exaggerated philosophy..... FRANKLIN BRADY: I had not seen it before. I thought it if "Metropolis" had had a better plot, it would have been better than "Things To Come" for the photography and sets were superb. However I couldn't take "Metropolis" seriously at all, it seemed too much like a futuristic Silly Symphony. Hard to comepare the two because one was all humor and the other had a serious and sensible plot. As far as my expectation of a serious plot went, it failed to match it, but it surpassed any idea I ever had of the amount of humor in the picture. Acting - hammy except for Rotwang. Directing - excellent. Ditto for settings. Poor science & story..... FRED SHROYER: Oh! Reaction? Swell photog. Better than things to come. If memory serves me (and it better had!) better than just. Only fly in slave the damnable, utterly unholy ham acting. Subtract acting (sic) and you have as a residue one of the best photographic efforts yet I have seen. Easy to see origin of laboratory scenes of Frankenstien fame; of Quasimodo's struggle atop the cathedral of Notre Dame in picture of same title; of the stair descent of the Phantom of the Opera. Story trite admitted. No point made as plot ends in draw and "where are our children." "Heart must unite hands and brain" stinks of Oxfordism. Eh?.... WARREN J. OSWALD: I had not seen it before. "Things to Come" had better settings and acting, but the directing in "Metropolis" was a bit the better. It surpassed my expectations, because I knew the date of release and remembered other pictures of the same date. It surpassed any up to that time. The acting detracted from the picture as a whole. Too dramatic. The directing was excellent! Settings were fine--something novel for the date. There really was not much real science involved, but what was there was very good. The story was mediocre, excepting a few incidences... MAYBELLE ANSHUTZ: (Translated from Esperanto) - About the beautiful & very interesting movie "Metropolis": Yes, it is very interesting, especially as to the facial-acrobatix. Did I recently sit in the theater & enjoy such atrocitys? Don't say yes, please, I couldnt stand the shame. It was good enuf for the old days, but then film art marches on. Concise Comments: VODOSO - I thot it fair; the plot childish & the acting over-emotional. HODGKINS: So that's your Great Scientifilm---!
Saving...
prev
next
Revival Reactions _______________ PAUL FREEHAFER: Here is the information on METROPOLIS (it deserves both capitals and underlining) as requested. Firstly: Yes, this is the firstime I saw it. May I add, with decent luck it won't be the lastime either. Secondly: From here on my reactions must be divided into two parts: a) The technical side of the picture, and b) the acting. Technically it far exceeded my expectations, great tho they were. In my humble opinion even the marvelous scenes in Things to Come were not equal to the effects achieved here, despite the improvements in camera technique in the intervening years. But I had completely forgotten the unrestrained overacting prevalent in the silent films, and was shocked, horrified, and amused. (More ham than the Chicago stock-yards.) So, balancing these two factors in my mind, I place Metropolis second in my list of favorite scientificinemas, high because of its marvelous settings and laboratory scenes, below Things to Come because of its poor acting and over-exaggerated philosophy..... FRANKLIN BRADY: I had not seen it before. I thought it if "Metropolis" had had a better plot, it would have been better than "Things To Come" for the photography and sets were superb. However I couldn't take "Metropolis" seriously at all, it seemed too much like a futuristic Silly Symphony. Hard to comepare the two because one was all humor and the other had a serious and sensible plot. As far as my expectation of a serious plot went, it failed to match it, but it surpassed any idea I ever had of the amount of humor in the picture. Acting - hammy except for Rotwang. Directing - excellent. Ditto for settings. Poor science & story..... FRED SHROYER: Oh! Reaction? Swell photog. Better than things to come. If memory serves me (and it better had!) better than just. Only fly in slave the damnable, utterly unholy ham acting. Subtract acting (sic) and you have as a residue one of the best photographic efforts yet I have seen. Easy to see origin of laboratory scenes of Frankenstien fame; of Quasimodo's struggle atop the cathedral of Notre Dame in picture of same title; of the stair descent of the Phantom of the Opera. Story trite admitted. No point made as plot ends in draw and "where are our children." "Heart must unite hands and brain" stinks of Oxfordism. Eh?.... WARREN J. OSWALD: I had not seen it before. "Things to Come" had better settings and acting, but the directing in "Metropolis" was a bit the better. It surpassed my expectations, because I knew the date of release and remembered other pictures of the same date. It surpassed any up to that time. The acting detracted from the picture as a whole. Too dramatic. The directing was excellent! Settings were fine--something novel for the date. There really was not much real science involved, but what was there was very good. The story was mediocre, excepting a few incidences... MAYBELLE ANSHUTZ: (Translated from Esperanto) - About the beautiful & very interesting movie "Metropolis": Yes, it is very interesting, especially as to the facial-acrobatix. Did I recently sit in the theater & enjoy such atrocitys? Don't say yes, please, I couldnt stand the shame. It was good enuf for the old days, but then film art marches on. Concise Comments: VODOSO - I thot it fair; the plot childish & the acting over-emotional. HODGKINS: So that's your Great Scientifilm---!
Hevelin Fanzines
sidebar
