What do you think?
Rate this book
Metropolis
This is Metropolis, the novel that the film's screenwriter—Thea von Harbou, who was director Fritz Lang's wife, and a collaborator in the creation of the film—this is the novel that Harbou wrote from her own notes. It contains bits of the story that got lost on the cutting-room floor; in a very real way it is the only way to understand the film. Michael Joseph of The Bookman wrote about the novel: "It is a remarkable piece of work, skillfully reproducing the atmosphere one has come to associate with the most ambitious German film productions. Suggestive in many respects of the dramatic work of Karel Capek and of the earlier fantastic romances of H. G. Wells, in treatment it is an interesting example of expressionist literature. ... Metropolis is one of the most powerful novels I have read and one which may capture a large public both in America and England if it does not prove too bewildering to the plain reader."
236 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1925
About the author
Thea von Harbou
23 books42 followersThea Gabriele von Harbou was a prolific German author and screenwriter, best known today for writing the screenplay of the silent film epic Metropolis (1927). She published over forty books, including novels, children’s books, and collections of short stories, essays, poems, and novellas.
For the German film industry, she wrote or collaborated on more than seventy screenplays in the silent and sound era. At one time, she was the highest-paid screenwriter in Germany.
She married three times: first to actor Rudolph Klein-Rogge, who played leading roles in many of her films, second to film director Fritz Lang, and third to Indian journalist and patriot Ayi Tendulkar. She had no children of her own.
In spite of her extraordinary success in the male-dominated film industry, she was no feminist. Her biographer Reinhold Keiner confirms, “She herself was 'a pretty explicit opponent of that flow, in which the women open up areas in which they . . . do not belong, and they close the areas where they could be queens.'” However, she lived the life of a career woman, and the women in her novels and films are usually strong-willed, self-sacrificing women called upon to rescue and redeem the men in their lives.
Thea showed an interest in writing from an early age and sold her first short story at the age of nine and her first novel at the age of fifteen.
Against her family’s wishes, she enrolled in the School of Performing Arts at the Düsseldorf Playhouse when she was seventeen, and for the next six years she pursued a successful career as a stage actor while she continued to publish stories and novels. Her last repertory season was at the State Theatre in Aachen, where Rudolph-Klein Rogge was the leading man and director. In August 1914, they married, and she turned her attention full-time to writing.
In 1919, director-producer Joe May hired her to collaborate on the screenplay of her story “The Legend of St. Simplicity” as a vehicle for his actor wife Mia May. That film’s success then led May to hire her to collaborate with Fritz Lang on an epic adaptation of her 1918 novel The Indian Tomb, which May directed. That collaboration with Lang initiated a thirteen-year creative partnership that produced some of the best-known films of the Weimar cinema, including Dr. Mabuse, The Nibelungen, Metropolis, Woman in the Moon, and the early sound film M—Murderers Among Us.
She and Lang divorced in 1933, but she continued to work in the German film industry. Some of her noteworthy sound films include her superb 1937 adaptation of von Kleist’s comedy The Broken Jug (Der zerbrochene Krug), the 1938 suspense film Covered Tracks (Verwehte Spuren), and the 1941 sentimental drama Annelie.
In 1941, she joined the Nazi party to gain political leverage to aid the cause of Indians working to overturn British rule in India. After the war, the British then interned her in the Staumül prison camp, where she was “de-Nazified” and cleared of any anti-Semitic activities. She was allowed to return to the film industry in 1948.
Following her appearance as a guest speaker at a Berlin film festival in 1954, she was injured in a fall and died two days later.
For the German film industry, she wrote or collaborated on more than seventy screenplays in the silent and sound era. At one time, she was the highest-paid screenwriter in Germany.
She married three times: first to actor Rudolph Klein-Rogge, who played leading roles in many of her films, second to film director Fritz Lang, and third to Indian journalist and patriot Ayi Tendulkar. She had no children of her own.
In spite of her extraordinary success in the male-dominated film industry, she was no feminist. Her biographer Reinhold Keiner confirms, “She herself was 'a pretty explicit opponent of that flow, in which the women open up areas in which they . . . do not belong, and they close the areas where they could be queens.'” However, she lived the life of a career woman, and the women in her novels and films are usually strong-willed, self-sacrificing women called upon to rescue and redeem the men in their lives.
Thea showed an interest in writing from an early age and sold her first short story at the age of nine and her first novel at the age of fifteen.
Against her family’s wishes, she enrolled in the School of Performing Arts at the Düsseldorf Playhouse when she was seventeen, and for the next six years she pursued a successful career as a stage actor while she continued to publish stories and novels. Her last repertory season was at the State Theatre in Aachen, where Rudolph-Klein Rogge was the leading man and director. In August 1914, they married, and she turned her attention full-time to writing.
In 1919, director-producer Joe May hired her to collaborate on the screenplay of her story “The Legend of St. Simplicity” as a vehicle for his actor wife Mia May. That film’s success then led May to hire her to collaborate with Fritz Lang on an epic adaptation of her 1918 novel The Indian Tomb, which May directed. That collaboration with Lang initiated a thirteen-year creative partnership that produced some of the best-known films of the Weimar cinema, including Dr. Mabuse, The Nibelungen, Metropolis, Woman in the Moon, and the early sound film M—Murderers Among Us.
She and Lang divorced in 1933, but she continued to work in the German film industry. Some of her noteworthy sound films include her superb 1937 adaptation of von Kleist’s comedy The Broken Jug (Der zerbrochene Krug), the 1938 suspense film Covered Tracks (Verwehte Spuren), and the 1941 sentimental drama Annelie.
In 1941, she joined the Nazi party to gain political leverage to aid the cause of Indians working to overturn British rule in India. After the war, the British then interned her in the Staumül prison camp, where she was “de-Nazified” and cleared of any anti-Semitic activities. She was allowed to return to the film industry in 1948.
Following her appearance as a guest speaker at a Berlin film festival in 1954, she was injured in a fall and died two days later.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 240 reviews
September 17, 2022
Oh God. This is so very purple that I'm sure to get flashbacks from this otherworldly experience.
I'm sure this was progressive. Once. Upon a time.
I'm sure this was progressive. Once. Upon a time.
November 24, 2018
Η ιδεολογική βάση στην οποία στηρίχθηκε η υπόθεση του συγκεκριμένου βιβλίου, γράφτηκε στα 1925, με προβλημάτισε ιδιαίτερα. Δεν ξέρω αν πρόκειται για μια τυπική περίπτωση απύθμενης ηλιθιότητας ή για κάποιο εξελιγμένο είδος χυδαίας προπαγάνδας. Αν κάποιος το έβλεπε ως ναζιστική κατήχηση δεν θα είχε άδικο, ωστόσο νομίζω πως περισσότερο αποτελεί ένα χαρακτηριστικό δείγμα της σύγχυσης που επικρατούσε στη Γερμανία του 1930.
Σύγχυση ιδεών και αξιών που μπορεί να συνοψιστεί εν συντομία σε μια φράση που αποτελεί συνάμα και ερμηνεία της συγγραφέως για την καταστροφή του βιβλικού Πύργου της Βαβέλ:
"Ο Εγκέφαλος και τα Χέρια χρειάζονται έναν μεσάζοντα. Ο μεσάζοντας ανάμεσα στον Εγκέφαλο και τα Χέρια πρέπει να είναι η Καρδιά".
Κάπως έτσι η κοινωνική και πολιτική δυσαρμονία που παρουσιάζεται στο βιβλίο (προφανώς σε άμεση αναλογία με τις παθογένειες της εποχής και του τόπου στον οποίο γράφτηκε) καταλήγει σε έναν ναΐφ μεσσιανισμό, όπου αναμένεται ένας σωτήρας προορισμένος να επιλύσει όλα τα προβλήματα. Τέτοιου είδους προσδοκίες είναι τουλάχιστον γελοίες, αλλά πολύ εύκολα μπορεί να καταλήξουν να γίνουν εξαιρετικά επικίνδυνες, όταν τις ασπάζονται οι πλειοψηφίες.
Στο βιβλίο λοιπόν παρουσιάζεται η Metropolis, μια φουτουριστική μεγαλούπολη με πενήντα εκατομμύρια κατοίκους, όπου οι εργάτες ζουν εξαθλιωμένοι σε υπόγειες κατοικίες, πολλά μέτρα κάτω από την επιφάνεια της γης, εργάζονται δέκα ώρες την ημέρα (ακατάπαυστα χωρίς αργίες) προκειμένου να συνεχιστεί η απρόσκοπτη λειτουργία των μηχανών - οι οποίες παρουσιάζονται ως θεότητες του μέλλοντος - είναι αναλώσιμοι και σύντομα πρόκειται, σύμφωνα με το σχέδιο του ιδρυτή της πόλης να υποκατασταθούν από τις μηχανικές εκδοχές τους (ρομπότ).
Στους χώρους αυτούς, όπου στην αρχαιότητα χρησίμευαν ως κατακόμβες νεκρών περιφέρεται η Μαρία, μια εξαιρετικής ομορφιάς και ευαισθησίας νέα που φροντίζει τα παιδιά των εργατών και κηρύττει στους εργάτες τις ανοησίες περί καρδιάς και χεριών τις οποίες προανέφερα, τροφοδοτώντας τους με ελπίδα, καταστέλλοντας με τις νουθεσίες της κάθε ενδεχόμενο αντίδρασης.
Στην επιφάνεια της γης ζει η μεσαία τάξη, κυρίως άνθρωποι που διαθέτουν μόρφωση και εργάζονται και αυτοί για λογαριασμό του ιδρυτή της πόλης, και ενώ απολαμβάνουν μια σαφώς καλύτερη ποιότητα ζωής, ζουν κι εκείνοι υπό καθεστώς τρόμου, χειραγώγησης και έλλειψης ελευθερίας. Εκεί υπάρχουν οι γυναίκες που λειτουργούν ως σκεύη ηδονής για τις ανώτερες τάξεις, οι υπηρέτες που συχνά παίζουν το ρόλο του χαφιέ, οι ιδιοκτήτες των νυχτερινών κέντρων διασκέδασης, ο οποίοι παρέχουν αφειδώς σεξ και ναρκωτικά ως μέσα εκτόνωσης και ανακούφισης σε όσους έχουν τη δυνατότητα να τα αγοράσουν.
Στην επιφάνεια επίσης υπάρχουν άλλοι δύο χώροι. Η μόνη μορφή αντιπολίτευσης απέναντι στο τυραννικό καθεστώς, είναι μια θρησκευτική σέχτα, οι Gothics με ηγέτη τον Desertus οι οποίοι συγκεντρώνονται στον καθεδρικό ναό της πόλης, και βαυκαλίζονται με διάφορα χιλιαστικά κηρύγματα, ζώντας μια ζωή ασκητική, χαμένοι μέσα σε αποκαλυπτικά οράματα και σε ανείπωτους θρησκευτικούς τρόμους.
Επίσης σε ένα αλλόκοτο οίκημα με μαγικές ιδιότητες και μια πεντάλφα στην πόρτα, ένα απομεινάρι του μεσαίωνα, όπου κάποτε είχε χτίσει ένας μάγος, ζει ο παρανοϊκός εφευρέτης της πόλης, ο Rotwang, ο οποίος ενώ μισεί θανάσιμα τον ιδρυτή της πόλης, εργάζεται κι αυτός για λογαριασμό του και δημιουργεί ένα πρωτότυπο μηχανικού ανθρώπου, που φέρει τη μορφή γυναίκας.
Στα υψηλότερα επίπεδα, στις κορυφές των ουρανοξυστών, υπάρχει μια άλλη πολιτεία, προορισμένη για τους λίγους και εκλεκτούς, η Λέσχη των Υιών, εκεί ανάμεσα στους άλλους ζει ο Freder ο γιος του ιδρυτή, και στην πιο απρόσιτη κορυφή, στον επονομαζόμενο Νέο Πύργο της Βαβέλ, ζει ο ιδρυτής, ο Εγκέφαλος της πόλης, ο Joh Fredersen. Το μόνο πρόσωπο που μπορεί να του αντιτάσσεται και να τον επικρίνει ευθέως για τις επιλογές του, είναι η γηραιά μητέρα του, την οποία ωστόσο, εκείνος, φροντίζει να αγνοεί.
Κι ενώ η συγγραφέας έχει καταφέρει να οικοδομήσει ένα τόσο ενδιαφέρον σύμπαν, στο τέλος όλο αυτό καταλήγει να ξεφουσκώνει, περιοριζόμενο σε ένα χλιαρό οικογενειακό δράμα, όπου κυριαρχεί μια πλήρης σύγχυση ανάμεσα στα κίνητρα, τις προθέσεις και τα αποτελέσματα των πράξεων των κεντρικών προσώπων, ένα πλήθος ανούσιων και τετριμμένων θρησκευτικών αναφορών προκειμένου να τονιστεί η αναλογία ανάμεσα στην αρχαία και τη νέα εκδοχή της Βαβυλώνας, στη μεσαιωνική αλχημεία - μαγεία και την επιστήμη.
Και πού καταλήγει όλο αυτό; Στη φράση που ξεστομίζει ο εκπρόσωπος των εργατών στον Joh Fredersen και με το οποίο ουσιαστικά κλείνει το έργο:
"- Περιμένουν κύριε Fredersen...
- Για τι πράγμα; τους ρώτησα.
- Περιμένουμε, συνέχισε ο εκπρόσωπος, για κάποιον να έρθει για να μας πει προς ποια κατεύθυνση να πορευτούμε..."
Η Thea von Harbou κατάφερε να ανακατέψει πολλά και διαφορετικά πράγματα, συνθέτοντας ένα χαοτικό μείγμα, έναν συγκρητιστικό πολτό, χωρίς ειρμό, νόημα και λογική αλληλουχία, έτσι ώστε στο τέλος όλα τα στοιχεία του έργου καταλήγουν να αλληλοεξουδετερώνονται, αφήνοντας μου ένα αίσθημα απορίας σχετικά με το τι ακριβώς ήταν αυτό που διάβασα:
"Το μείγμα συναισθηματισμού και συντηρητισμού, εσωτερικής ευσέβειας και ανούσιου, λαϊκίστικου αισθησιασμού της Harbou, της εξασφάλισε τον τίτλο της "κόμησσας του Κιτς" του γερμανικού κινηματογράφου (Lady Kitschener). Στα σενάρια και τις ιστορίες της υποβίβασε μια πληθώρα μύθων και λογοτεχνικών πηγών προκειμένου να εξασφαλίσει ένα εμπορικά επιτυχημένο μελοδραματικό αισθησιασμό γεμάτο από ψευδοθρησκευτικό πάθος, όπως είναι προφανές όχι μόνο από τα σενάρια που έγραψε για τον τον Lang αλλά και για άλλους σκηνοθέτες [...]
Στην περίπτωση του Metropolis Η Harbou χρησιμοποίησε αυτήν την τεχνική της απομίμησης (pastiche) προκειμένου να δημιουργήσει μια ανομοιογενή, ανούσια συλλογή από μοτίβα διάφορων λογοτεχνικών πηγών όπως "Η Μηχανή του Χρόνου" και το "Όταν ο κοιμισμένος ξυπνήσει" (οι εργάτες που ζουν κάτω από της επιφάνεια της γης) του H. G. Wells, τον "Φρανκενστάιν" της Mary Shelley, το "L'Ève future" του Villiers d' Isle-Adam και το "R.U.R." (ένας εφευρέτης δημιουργεί τεχνητή ζωή) του Karel Capek και διάφορα γερμανικά δραματικά θεατρικά έργα της εποχής όπως το "Gas" του Georg Kaiser και το " Masse Mensch" του Ernst Toller.
Το τελικό αποτέλεσμα έφερε έναν υπερβάλλοντα εκλεκτικισμό που περιείχε ένα ακαθόριστο μείγμα από σοσιαλισμό (εργάτες ενάντια στους καπιταλιστές), εξπρεσιονισμό (η γοητεία και ο τρόμος των μηχανών, η μοντέρνα πόλη ως Μολώχ, η σύγκρουση ανάμεσα σε Πατέρα και Γιο, το όραμα της αναμόρφωσης της ανθρωπότητας από έναν επερχόμενο σωτήρα), μύθο (ο αλχημιστής, τα γοτθικά οράματα) και μια ρομαντική ιστορία αγάπης" (Βλέπε άρθρο του Holger Bachmann "The Production and Contemporary Reception of Metropolis", στον συλλογικό τόμο: Fritz Lang's Metropolis: Cinematic Visions of Technology and Fear, εκδ. Camden House, 2002 σελ. 9-10)
Ένα βιβλίο με τεράστιες δυνατότητες αλλά με εξαιρετικά απογοητευτικό αποτέλεσμα. Σαφώς κατώτερο της ταινίας, με τον ίδιο τίτλο, την οποία σκηνοθέτησε ο Fritz Lang (σύζυγος της Thea von Harbou) στα 1927 και η οποία παρά τις σεναριακές της αδυναμίες έχει σαφώς κάποιες εξαιρετικά δυνατές εικόνες και ένα πιο ξεκάθαρο αφηγηματικό πλαίσιο. Λίγο αργότερα το ζευγάρι θα χωρίσει.
Ο Lang θα συνεχίσει την καριέρα του στην Αμερική ενώ η Harbou θα παραμείνει στη Γερμανία γράφοντας σενάρια και σκηνοθετώντας ταινίες για λογαριασμό του ναζιστικού καθεστώτος.
Σύγχυση ιδεών και αξιών που μπορεί να συνοψιστεί εν συντομία σε μια φράση που αποτελεί συνάμα και ερμηνεία της συγγραφέως για την καταστροφή του βιβλικού Πύργου της Βαβέλ:
"Ο Εγκέφαλος και τα Χέρια χρειάζονται έναν μεσάζοντα. Ο μεσάζοντας ανάμεσα στον Εγκέφαλο και τα Χέρια πρέπει να είναι η Καρδιά".
Κάπως έτσι η κοινωνική και πολιτική δυσαρμονία που παρουσιάζεται στο βιβλίο (προφανώς σε άμεση αναλογία με τις παθογένειες της εποχής και του τόπου στον οποίο γράφτηκε) καταλήγει σε έναν ναΐφ μεσσιανισμό, όπου αναμένεται ένας σωτήρας προορισμένος να επιλύσει όλα τα προβλήματα. Τέτοιου είδους προσδοκίες είναι τουλάχιστον γελοίες, αλλά πολύ εύκολα μπορεί να καταλήξουν να γίνουν εξαιρετικά επικίνδυνες, όταν τις ασπάζονται οι πλειοψηφίες.
Στο βιβλίο λοιπόν παρουσιάζεται η Metropolis, μια φουτουριστική μεγαλούπολη με πενήντα εκατομμύρια κατοίκους, όπου οι εργάτες ζουν εξαθλιωμένοι σε υπόγειες κατοικίες, πολλά μέτρα κάτω από την επιφάνεια της γης, εργάζονται δέκα ώρες την ημέρα (ακατάπαυστα χωρίς αργίες) προκειμένου να συνεχιστεί η απρόσκοπτη λειτουργία των μηχανών - οι οποίες παρουσιάζονται ως θεότητες του μέλλοντος - είναι αναλώσιμοι και σύντομα πρόκειται, σύμφωνα με το σχέδιο του ιδρυτή της πόλης να υποκατασταθούν από τις μηχανικές εκδοχές τους (ρομπότ).
Στους χώρους αυτούς, όπου στην αρχαιότητα χρησίμευαν ως κατακόμβες νεκρών περιφέρεται η Μαρία, μια εξαιρετικής ομορφιάς και ευαισθησίας νέα που φροντίζει τα παιδιά των εργατών και κηρύττει στους εργάτες τις ανοησίες περί καρδιάς και χεριών τις οποίες προανέφερα, τροφοδοτώντας τους με ελπίδα, καταστέλλοντας με τις νουθεσίες της κάθε ενδεχόμενο αντίδρασης.
Στην επιφάνεια της γης ζει η μεσαία τάξη, κυρίως άνθρωποι που διαθέτουν μόρφωση και εργάζονται και αυτοί για λογαριασμό του ιδρυτή της πόλης, και ενώ απολαμβάνουν μια σαφώς καλύτερη ποιότητα ζωής, ζουν κι εκείνοι υπό καθεστώς τρόμου, χειραγώγησης και έλλειψης ελευθερίας. Εκεί υπάρχουν οι γυναίκες που λειτουργούν ως σκεύη ηδονής για τις ανώτερες τάξεις, οι υπηρέτες που συχνά παίζουν το ρόλο του χαφιέ, οι ιδιοκτήτες των νυχτερινών κέντρων διασκέδασης, ο οποίοι παρέχουν αφειδώς σεξ και ναρκωτικά ως μέσα εκτόνωσης και ανακούφισης σε όσους έχουν τη δυνατότητα να τα αγοράσουν.
Στην επιφάνεια επίσης υπάρχουν άλλοι δύο χώροι. Η μόνη μορφή αντιπολίτευσης απέναντι στο τυραννικό καθεστώς, είναι μια θρησκευτική σέχτα, οι Gothics με ηγέτη τον Desertus οι οποίοι συγκεντρώνονται στον καθεδρικό ναό της πόλης, και βαυκαλίζονται με διάφορα χιλιαστικά κηρύγματα, ζώντας μια ζωή ασκητική, χαμένοι μέσα σε αποκαλυπτικά οράματα και σε ανείπωτους θρησκευτικούς τρόμους.
Επίσης σε ένα αλλόκοτο οίκημα με μαγικές ιδιότητες και μια πεντάλφα στην πόρτα, ένα απομεινάρι του μεσαίωνα, όπου κάποτε είχε χτίσει ένας μάγος, ζει ο παρανοϊκός εφευρέτης της πόλης, ο Rotwang, ο οποίος ενώ μισεί θανάσιμα τον ιδρυτή της πόλης, εργάζεται κι αυτός για λογαριασμό του και δημιουργεί ένα πρωτότυπο μηχανικού ανθρώπου, που φέρει τη μορφή γυναίκας.
Στα υψηλότερα επίπεδα, στις κορυφές των ουρανοξυστών, υπάρχει μια άλλη πολιτεία, προορισμένη για τους λίγους και εκλεκτούς, η Λέσχη των Υιών, εκεί ανάμεσα στους άλλους ζει ο Freder ο γιος του ιδρυτή, και στην πιο απρόσιτη κορυφή, στον επονομαζόμενο Νέο Πύργο της Βαβέλ, ζει ο ιδρυτής, ο Εγκέφαλος της πόλης, ο Joh Fredersen. Το μόνο πρόσωπο που μπορεί να του αντιτάσσεται και να τον επικρίνει ευθέως για τις επιλογές του, είναι η γηραιά μητέρα του, την οποία ωστόσο, εκείνος, φροντίζει να αγνοεί.
Κι ενώ η συγγραφέας έχει καταφέρει να οικοδομήσει ένα τόσο ενδιαφέρον σύμπαν, στο τέλος όλο αυτό καταλήγει να ξεφουσκώνει, περιοριζόμενο σε ένα χλιαρό οικογενειακό δράμα, όπου κυριαρχεί μια πλήρης σύγχυση ανάμεσα στα κίνητρα, τις προθέσεις και τα αποτελέσματα των πράξεων των κεντρικών προσώπων, ένα πλήθος ανούσιων και τετριμμένων θρησκευτικών αναφορών προκειμένου να τονιστεί η αναλογία ανάμεσα στην αρχαία και τη νέα εκδοχή της Βαβυλώνας, στη μεσαιωνική αλχημεία - μαγεία και την επιστήμη.
Και πού καταλήγει όλο αυτό; Στη φράση που ξεστομίζει ο εκπρόσωπος των εργατών στον Joh Fredersen και με το οποίο ουσιαστικά κλείνει το έργο:
"- Περιμένουν κύριε Fredersen...
- Για τι πράγμα; τους ρώτησα.
- Περιμένουμε, συνέχισε ο εκπρόσωπος, για κάποιον να έρθει για να μας πει προς ποια κατεύθυνση να πορευτούμε..."
Η Thea von Harbou κατάφερε να ανακατέψει πολλά και διαφορετικά πράγματα, συνθέτοντας ένα χαοτικό μείγμα, έναν συγκρητιστικό πολτό, χωρίς ειρμό, νόημα και λογική αλληλουχία, έτσι ώστε στο τέλος όλα τα στοιχεία του έργου καταλήγουν να αλληλοεξουδετερώνονται, αφήνοντας μου ένα αίσθημα απορίας σχετικά με το τι ακριβώς ήταν αυτό που διάβασα:
"Το μείγμα συναισθηματισμού και συντηρητισμού, εσωτερικής ευσέβειας και ανούσιου, λαϊκίστικου αισθησιασμού της Harbou, της εξασφάλισε τον τίτλο της "κόμησσας του Κιτς" του γερμανικού κινηματογράφου (Lady Kitschener). Στα σενάρια και τις ιστορίες της υποβίβασε μια πληθώρα μύθων και λογοτεχνικών πηγών προκειμένου να εξασφαλίσει ένα εμπορικά επιτυχημένο μελοδραματικό αισθησιασμό γεμάτο από ψευδοθρησκευτικό πάθος, όπως είναι προφανές όχι μόνο από τα σενάρια που έγραψε για τον τον Lang αλλά και για άλλους σκηνοθέτες [...]
Στην περίπτωση του Metropolis Η Harbou χρησιμοποίησε αυτήν την τεχνική της απομίμησης (pastiche) προκειμένου να δημιουργήσει μια ανομοιογενή, ανούσια συλλογή από μοτίβα διάφορων λογοτεχνικών πηγών όπως "Η Μηχανή του Χρόνου" και το "Όταν ο κοιμισμένος ξυπνήσει" (οι εργάτες που ζουν κάτω από της επιφάνεια της γης) του H. G. Wells, τον "Φρανκενστάιν" της Mary Shelley, το "L'Ève future" του Villiers d' Isle-Adam και το "R.U.R." (ένας εφευρέτης δημιουργεί τεχνητή ζωή) του Karel Capek και διάφορα γερμανικά δραματικά θεατρικά έργα της εποχής όπως το "Gas" του Georg Kaiser και το " Masse Mensch" του Ernst Toller.
Το τελικό αποτέλεσμα έφερε έναν υπερβάλλοντα εκλεκτικισμό που περιείχε ένα ακαθόριστο μείγμα από σοσιαλισμό (εργάτες ενάντια στους καπιταλιστές), εξπρεσιονισμό (η γοητεία και ο τρόμος των μηχανών, η μοντέρνα πόλη ως Μολώχ, η σύγκρουση ανάμεσα σε Πατέρα και Γιο, το όραμα της αναμόρφωσης της ανθρωπότητας από έναν επερχόμενο σωτήρα), μύθο (ο αλχημιστής, τα γοτθικά οράματα) και μια ρομαντική ιστορία αγάπης" (Βλέπε άρθρο του Holger Bachmann "The Production and Contemporary Reception of Metropolis", στον συλλογικό τόμο: Fritz Lang's Metropolis: Cinematic Visions of Technology and Fear, εκδ. Camden House, 2002 σελ. 9-10)
Ένα βιβλίο με τεράστιες δυνατότητες αλλά με εξαιρετικά απογοητευτικό αποτέλεσμα. Σαφώς κατώτερο της ταινίας, με τον ίδιο τίτλο, την οποία σκηνοθέτησε ο Fritz Lang (σύζυγος της Thea von Harbou) στα 1927 και η οποία παρά τις σεναριακές της αδυναμίες έχει σαφώς κάποιες εξαιρετικά δυνατές εικόνες και ένα πιο ξεκάθαρο αφηγηματικό πλαίσιο. Λίγο αργότερα το ζευγάρι θα χωρίσει.
Ο Lang θα συνεχίσει την καριέρα του στην Αμερική ενώ η Harbou θα παραμείνει στη Γερμανία γράφοντας σενάρια και σκηνοθετώντας ταινίες για λογαριασμό του ναζιστικού καθεστώτος.
October 16, 2019
3.5*
Dieses Buch ist kein Gegenwartsbild. Dieses Buch ist kein Zukunftsbild. Dieses Buch spielt nirgendwo. Dieses Buch dient keiner Tendenz, keiner Klasse, keiner Partei. Dieses Buch ist ein Geschehen, das sich um eine Erkenntnis rankt: Mittler zwischen Hirn und Händen muß das Herz sein. —Thea von Harbou
Translation: This book is not of today. This book is not of the future. It tells of no place. It serves no cause, class or party. This book is a story which grows on the understanding that: "The mediator between brain and muscle must be the Heart." —Thea von Harbou
Inspired by Troy's posts on all things Metropolis, I finally managed to watch the film and read the book by Fritz Lang's wife Thea von Harbou. Unlike some of her other novels, Metropolis actually did not start as a script but was published 1925, before the film was made.
It is of course nearly impossible to read the book without being reminded of the imagery of the film. Even tho I had not seen the film before I read the book, the images from the film have permeated western culture so much that I would wager that only few people have not been exposed to them - be it through music videos, films, design...
Back to the book. I really enjoyed it. It was not perfect. It had some issues, but they were not able to spoil the story or the imagination, or the language.
I cannot put my finger on it but this was a book where I had to read out passages aloud because the writing was so dramatic that I had to hear it. (Btw, I read the German original and cannot speak for the English - or any other - translation on this.)
With other books, the overly dramatic writing would have caused me to dislike the book, but for Metropolis - whose story and imagery (even in the book) is based on the constant struggle between extremes (like the "head" v "hand", the "above" v "below", "man" v "machine", etc.) - it worked.
The second aspect I really enjoyed was the use of different pieces of mythology that are woven into the story. We get medieval chivalry, biblical, references, Hindu mythology (there are references to deities like Ganesha), Norse mythology - one of the characters who set off the plot is "Hel"! (bodes well, doesn't it?) - Greek mythology, and so much more. While the message is rather general, the symbolism is so strong in this one that it felt like a puzzle at times, which was highly entertaining.
There are some aspects, however, which were challenging in the book, which the film (and I cannot praise the film high enough) overcame: At times the book drags, and there are some scenes that don't really make sense (like what was up with Josaphat and the plane???). As a result, some parts of the book take a bit work (yes, actual work) to get through them to get to the somewhat vague message that is already given to us on page one.
Also, there is this one dream scene in the book that is so obscure that it made little sense without the visual aid of the film, even though the text does not withhold any information about the significance of the scene. It just really works better in the film, but this is why von Harbou was better known for her screenwriting than for her novels.
"The crown rested on the head of a woman. And the woman was sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet and decked with gold, precious stones and pearls. She had in her hand a golden cup. On the crowned brow of the woman there stood, mysteriously written: Babylon."
"Like a deity, she grew up and radiated. Death and the seven Deadly Sins bowed low before her."
"And the woman who bore the name Babylon had the features of Maria, whom I loved… "
"The woman arose. She touched the cross-arched vault of the lofty cathedral with her crown. She seized the hem of her cloak and opened it. And spread out her cloak with both hands… Then one saw that the golden cloak was embroidered with the images of manifold demons. Beings with women's bodies and snakes' heads— beings half bull, half angel— devils adorned with crowns, human faced lions."
In the film, this translated into one of the scenes I loved best for its expressionist features, when the danse macabre ensues within the club reserved for the elite of Metropolis, when the re-imagined Hel (in a manner of a stylised dance) unleashes her evil onto onlookers. It just works.
Dieses Buch ist kein Gegenwartsbild. Dieses Buch ist kein Zukunftsbild. Dieses Buch spielt nirgendwo. Dieses Buch dient keiner Tendenz, keiner Klasse, keiner Partei. Dieses Buch ist ein Geschehen, das sich um eine Erkenntnis rankt: Mittler zwischen Hirn und Händen muß das Herz sein. —Thea von Harbou
Translation: This book is not of today. This book is not of the future. It tells of no place. It serves no cause, class or party. This book is a story which grows on the understanding that: "The mediator between brain and muscle must be the Heart." —Thea von Harbou
Inspired by Troy's posts on all things Metropolis, I finally managed to watch the film and read the book by Fritz Lang's wife Thea von Harbou. Unlike some of her other novels, Metropolis actually did not start as a script but was published 1925, before the film was made.
It is of course nearly impossible to read the book without being reminded of the imagery of the film. Even tho I had not seen the film before I read the book, the images from the film have permeated western culture so much that I would wager that only few people have not been exposed to them - be it through music videos, films, design...
Back to the book. I really enjoyed it. It was not perfect. It had some issues, but they were not able to spoil the story or the imagination, or the language.
I cannot put my finger on it but this was a book where I had to read out passages aloud because the writing was so dramatic that I had to hear it. (Btw, I read the German original and cannot speak for the English - or any other - translation on this.)
With other books, the overly dramatic writing would have caused me to dislike the book, but for Metropolis - whose story and imagery (even in the book) is based on the constant struggle between extremes (like the "head" v "hand", the "above" v "below", "man" v "machine", etc.) - it worked.
The second aspect I really enjoyed was the use of different pieces of mythology that are woven into the story. We get medieval chivalry, biblical, references, Hindu mythology (there are references to deities like Ganesha), Norse mythology - one of the characters who set off the plot is "Hel"! (bodes well, doesn't it?) - Greek mythology, and so much more. While the message is rather general, the symbolism is so strong in this one that it felt like a puzzle at times, which was highly entertaining.
There are some aspects, however, which were challenging in the book, which the film (and I cannot praise the film high enough) overcame: At times the book drags, and there are some scenes that don't really make sense (like what was up with Josaphat and the plane???). As a result, some parts of the book take a bit work (yes, actual work) to get through them to get to the somewhat vague message that is already given to us on page one.
Also, there is this one dream scene in the book that is so obscure that it made little sense without the visual aid of the film, even though the text does not withhold any information about the significance of the scene. It just really works better in the film, but this is why von Harbou was better known for her screenwriting than for her novels.
"The crown rested on the head of a woman. And the woman was sitting upon a scarlet-coloured beast, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet and decked with gold, precious stones and pearls. She had in her hand a golden cup. On the crowned brow of the woman there stood, mysteriously written: Babylon."
"Like a deity, she grew up and radiated. Death and the seven Deadly Sins bowed low before her."
"And the woman who bore the name Babylon had the features of Maria, whom I loved… "
"The woman arose. She touched the cross-arched vault of the lofty cathedral with her crown. She seized the hem of her cloak and opened it. And spread out her cloak with both hands… Then one saw that the golden cloak was embroidered with the images of manifold demons. Beings with women's bodies and snakes' heads— beings half bull, half angel— devils adorned with crowns, human faced lions."
In the film, this translated into one of the scenes I loved best for its expressionist features, when the danse macabre ensues within the club reserved for the elite of Metropolis, when the re-imagined Hel (in a manner of a stylised dance) unleashes her evil onto onlookers. It just works.
October 24, 2018
Well… This was bad. Really. Really. Bad.
A Moloch of a city and all-governing technology devouring its human servants. Two classes, the ones above ground, living in silk and leisure, the ones underground, slaving for both their metal and upscale masters, the two of them not interacting on any level. Hello Wells, hello Marx, and hello to a very real early twentieth century. The major plot element is the need for a mediator who would bring unity to those separate semi-societies. But there is also the evil robot.
Now, as a film – “Metropolis” is brilliant. Not only for its place in the history of film-making, but also as one of, if not the, very emblematic piece of expressionist cinema from the twenties. Firstly, it is visually absolutely stunning and beautifully orchestrated. Secondly, it is well-arranged and with a solid, classic dramatic structure. The novel, on the other hand is awful. Von Harbou is likely better with scripts, that is with something more formally dramatic and theatrical, than with narration. Or maybe Lang is simply a cinematic genius and we have him to thank.
The novel is so swollen with theatrical and melodramatic exaggeration, that instantaneously it becomes either ridiculous or aggravating. All those bombastic scenes lack connection, they are incoherent at best and interchangeable at worst. Some characters and subplots contribute nothing to the whole and are completely omittable, while the novel has altogether neither structure nor flow, and merely leaps from one pompous scene to the next, often unfortunately smothering even the elementary dramatic devices (mistaken identity, personal vengeance, recognizing a higher goal and working towards it, etc.)
No pun intended, but the characters show… no character. Not one of them even remotely resembles a human being. Their actions are unmotivated and implausible, every impulse and change of heart only serving the plot, not their inner development. Not that there was anything to develop here to begin with.
But there is a very familiar set of images. The masses, all without name and face, as one gigantic organic mechanism. The young man with his open yet unyielding face, staring into the distance in recognition of a higher ideal, clenching his fists and straightening his shoulders in acceptance of his role towards a noble goal for the benefit of the whole of society. His chastely beloved with her pure, white austerity of the Virgin and Mother. (Fun Fact: If you’re motherly but not virginal, you die at childbirth, having played your part. So I guess that the old slasher cliché goes here as well: Once you’ve fucked, you’re fucked. If you’re neither motherly nor virginal, then you’re a demon robot set on destruction through seduction. How very clerical.) So emblematic, such a beloved motif for posters and propaganda: church, Nazi, war… pick your poison. Though my personal favorite has to be the tormented former party club hostess, on her knees, having her heavy make-up washed down by tears and wiped off by a somber little proletarian child in rags.
There is so much cheap and tacky Christianity and ideology here that one gets the urge to vomit green acid in full circle. And it’s exactly the same elements that make you understand why Von Harbou was apparently a really fitting screenwriter for Nazi propaganda purposes. (After all, they draw from the same pool of images and ideas. It also shows very exemplary the crippling religious zealousness of modern-day right-wingers.)
I hope that Von Harbou could run like a cheetah, or play an instrument nicely, or that she had any redeeming skill whatsoever. Because, sweet Loki of Asgard, was she a shitty writer! Seriously, don’t judge a movie by its book!
A Moloch of a city and all-governing technology devouring its human servants. Two classes, the ones above ground, living in silk and leisure, the ones underground, slaving for both their metal and upscale masters, the two of them not interacting on any level. Hello Wells, hello Marx, and hello to a very real early twentieth century. The major plot element is the need for a mediator who would bring unity to those separate semi-societies. But there is also the evil robot.
Now, as a film – “Metropolis” is brilliant. Not only for its place in the history of film-making, but also as one of, if not the, very emblematic piece of expressionist cinema from the twenties. Firstly, it is visually absolutely stunning and beautifully orchestrated. Secondly, it is well-arranged and with a solid, classic dramatic structure. The novel, on the other hand is awful. Von Harbou is likely better with scripts, that is with something more formally dramatic and theatrical, than with narration. Or maybe Lang is simply a cinematic genius and we have him to thank.
The novel is so swollen with theatrical and melodramatic exaggeration, that instantaneously it becomes either ridiculous or aggravating. All those bombastic scenes lack connection, they are incoherent at best and interchangeable at worst. Some characters and subplots contribute nothing to the whole and are completely omittable, while the novel has altogether neither structure nor flow, and merely leaps from one pompous scene to the next, often unfortunately smothering even the elementary dramatic devices (mistaken identity, personal vengeance, recognizing a higher goal and working towards it, etc.)
No pun intended, but the characters show… no character. Not one of them even remotely resembles a human being. Their actions are unmotivated and implausible, every impulse and change of heart only serving the plot, not their inner development. Not that there was anything to develop here to begin with.
But there is a very familiar set of images. The masses, all without name and face, as one gigantic organic mechanism. The young man with his open yet unyielding face, staring into the distance in recognition of a higher ideal, clenching his fists and straightening his shoulders in acceptance of his role towards a noble goal for the benefit of the whole of society. His chastely beloved with her pure, white austerity of the Virgin and Mother. (Fun Fact: If you’re motherly but not virginal, you die at childbirth, having played your part. So I guess that the old slasher cliché goes here as well: Once you’ve fucked, you’re fucked. If you’re neither motherly nor virginal, then you’re a demon robot set on destruction through seduction. How very clerical.) So emblematic, such a beloved motif for posters and propaganda: church, Nazi, war… pick your poison. Though my personal favorite has to be the tormented former party club hostess, on her knees, having her heavy make-up washed down by tears and wiped off by a somber little proletarian child in rags.
There is so much cheap and tacky Christianity and ideology here that one gets the urge to vomit green acid in full circle. And it’s exactly the same elements that make you understand why Von Harbou was apparently a really fitting screenwriter for Nazi propaganda purposes. (After all, they draw from the same pool of images and ideas. It also shows very exemplary the crippling religious zealousness of modern-day right-wingers.)
I hope that Von Harbou could run like a cheetah, or play an instrument nicely, or that she had any redeeming skill whatsoever. Because, sweet Loki of Asgard, was she a shitty writer! Seriously, don’t judge a movie by its book!
December 29, 2023
Er sehnte sich danach, die Steine, an die er die Stirn lehnte, in grenzenloser Zärtlichkeit zu küssen. Gott - Gott! Schlug ihm das Herz in der Brust, und jeder Herzschlag war anbetende Dankbarkeit. Er sah das Mädchen und sah es nicht. Holdselige, formte sein Mund. Meine! Geliebte! Wie konnte die Welt bestehen, als du noch nicht warst? Wie muss das Lächeln Gottes gewesen sein, als er dich schuf? Du sprichst? Was sprichst du? Das Herz schreit in mir - ich kann deine Worte nicht fassen ... Habe Geduld mit mir, Holdselige, Geliebte!
Quizfrage: in welcher Epoche und in welchem Zeitalter befindet sich diese Passage eines Buchs? Ich hätte wohl auf Liebesromanze oder -Drama aus dem 19. Jahrhundert getippt. Korrekt ist Science-Fiction der 20er Jahre.
Und dieses Diskrepanz zwischen Leseerlebnis und ursprünglicher Erwartung hielt auf den ersten 100 Seiten bei mir an, bis es mir schlichtweg zu viel Theatralik wurde. Ich ertappte mich, dass ich mich über diese schwulstige bildhafte Sprache langsam lustig machte und das war der Zeitpunkt dem Spaß ein Ende zu bereiten. Ich brach bei 40 % ab.
Trotz des Abbruchs vergebe ich einen zweiten Stern, denn faszinierend fand ich, wie man beim Lesen dieser melodramatischen Passagen die Szenen des Films von Fritz Lang in den Kopf bekam. Thea von Harbou war seine Frau zu Beginn der 20er Jahre. Sie kam aus dem Theaterfach, was man dem Buch sehr anmerkt. Zuvor hatte sie schon Drehbücher für Stummfilme geschrieben, und dieser Roman hat sehr viele Tendenzen eines Drehbuchs. Die Szene wirkten auf mich wie eingefroren, während die Hauptperson in diesen Szenen wie verlassen umherirrt und hadert. Ich bin wirklich beeindruckt, wie Lang dieses Buch von seiner Frau in einen der besten Stummfilme aller Zeiten verwandeln konnte. Als filmisches Produkt wirkt die Geschichte, als erzähltes Produkt ging es einfach nicht zu mir. Die Geschichte dieser Zwei-Klassen-Gesellschaft wirkte auf mich wie ein Alptraum. Für Interessenten an den Anfängen des Genres oder für Freunde des Theaters mag es ein gutes Buch sein. Für mich war es leider nicht das Richtige.
Quizfrage: in welcher Epoche und in welchem Zeitalter befindet sich diese Passage eines Buchs? Ich hätte wohl auf Liebesromanze oder -Drama aus dem 19. Jahrhundert getippt. Korrekt ist Science-Fiction der 20er Jahre.
Und dieses Diskrepanz zwischen Leseerlebnis und ursprünglicher Erwartung hielt auf den ersten 100 Seiten bei mir an, bis es mir schlichtweg zu viel Theatralik wurde. Ich ertappte mich, dass ich mich über diese schwulstige bildhafte Sprache langsam lustig machte und das war der Zeitpunkt dem Spaß ein Ende zu bereiten. Ich brach bei 40 % ab.
Trotz des Abbruchs vergebe ich einen zweiten Stern, denn faszinierend fand ich, wie man beim Lesen dieser melodramatischen Passagen die Szenen des Films von Fritz Lang in den Kopf bekam. Thea von Harbou war seine Frau zu Beginn der 20er Jahre. Sie kam aus dem Theaterfach, was man dem Buch sehr anmerkt. Zuvor hatte sie schon Drehbücher für Stummfilme geschrieben, und dieser Roman hat sehr viele Tendenzen eines Drehbuchs. Die Szene wirkten auf mich wie eingefroren, während die Hauptperson in diesen Szenen wie verlassen umherirrt und hadert. Ich bin wirklich beeindruckt, wie Lang dieses Buch von seiner Frau in einen der besten Stummfilme aller Zeiten verwandeln konnte. Als filmisches Produkt wirkt die Geschichte, als erzähltes Produkt ging es einfach nicht zu mir. Die Geschichte dieser Zwei-Klassen-Gesellschaft wirkte auf mich wie ein Alptraum. Für Interessenten an den Anfängen des Genres oder für Freunde des Theaters mag es ein gutes Buch sein. Für mich war es leider nicht das Richtige.
January 8, 2019
Metropolis, la grande Metropolis, è la città delle macchine, dove tutto ruota intorno ad esse, anche e soprattutto gli esseri umani.
Nel 1926 Thea von Harbou, dopo essersi sposata con Fritz Lang (il regista del film "Metropolis") scrive questo romanzo, un romanzo alla base distopico, tra i primi racconti di fantascienza distopica. Ma la scrittrice ci mescola dentro un po' di tutto. Principamente c'è il tema religioso, alle volte troppo, soffocante (ma questo è un mio problema); poi c'è molto fantastico/gotico, la parte migliore, anzi direi stupenda, con picchi di poeticità straordinaria; poi c'è molto amore, redenzione, un pizzico di mitologia e folklore...
Insomma il libro è multiforme e forse l'autrice ha messo troppa carne al fuoco, accenni lasciati lì, argomentazioni, interessanti, ma solo accennate o sospirate.
Poi ci sono le note negative e sono un po': a parte la religiosità pressante, ci sono delle dissertazioni, riflessioni sociali che mi hanno fatto storcere il naso, alle volte mi sbalordivo a sapere che questo libro fosse stato scritto da una donna ed infine ci sono capitoli deliranti, dove alla fine di essi, mi girava la testa...
Diciamo nel complesso una mezza delusione, meglio il film di Fritz Lang, ma forse va letto come dice proprio Lang: "Penso che questa sia solo una fiaba...". Comunque io rivado sempre alla frase, ormai tra le mie frasi preferite e fonte d'ispirazione, quella di Kurt Vonnegut: "Così va la vita."
Poi nel 1932 Thea von Harbou aderirà al partito nazionalsocialista, Lang non ci sta e nel 1933 i due divorzieranno e...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22pRs...
Nel 1926 Thea von Harbou, dopo essersi sposata con Fritz Lang (il regista del film "Metropolis") scrive questo romanzo, un romanzo alla base distopico, tra i primi racconti di fantascienza distopica. Ma la scrittrice ci mescola dentro un po' di tutto. Principamente c'è il tema religioso, alle volte troppo, soffocante (ma questo è un mio problema); poi c'è molto fantastico/gotico, la parte migliore, anzi direi stupenda, con picchi di poeticità straordinaria; poi c'è molto amore, redenzione, un pizzico di mitologia e folklore...
Insomma il libro è multiforme e forse l'autrice ha messo troppa carne al fuoco, accenni lasciati lì, argomentazioni, interessanti, ma solo accennate o sospirate.
Poi ci sono le note negative e sono un po': a parte la religiosità pressante, ci sono delle dissertazioni, riflessioni sociali che mi hanno fatto storcere il naso, alle volte mi sbalordivo a sapere che questo libro fosse stato scritto da una donna ed infine ci sono capitoli deliranti, dove alla fine di essi, mi girava la testa...
Diciamo nel complesso una mezza delusione, meglio il film di Fritz Lang, ma forse va letto come dice proprio Lang: "Penso che questa sia solo una fiaba...". Comunque io rivado sempre alla frase, ormai tra le mie frasi preferite e fonte d'ispirazione, quella di Kurt Vonnegut: "Così va la vita."
Poi nel 1932 Thea von Harbou aderirà al partito nazionalsocialista, Lang non ci sta e nel 1933 i due divorzieranno e...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22pRs...
September 24, 2011
Thea von Harbou is best known today as the wife of the great film director Fritz Lang and his close collaborator on most of his early German masterpieces. She not only co-wrote the scripts, she also turned several of them into novels, including perhaps the most famous of all, Metropolis.
She had in fact written several novels prior to her marriage to Lang and had been an actress as well. While Lang left Germany in the early 30s von Harbou remained and her career in the wartime German film industry is rather controversial.
The city of Metropolis is dominated by the will of Joh Fredersen. This is a vision of a city of the future, a city of machines. The machines require people to operate them, and the machines consume their operators. Their appetite is limitless. There is an underground city beneath Metropolis which provides the machines with the human they require. The upper city is a kind of playground for the rich, with sex and drugs being the main item on the menu.
Joh Fredersen is not a particularly happy man. His wife died giving birth to his son Freder. He had stolen his wife from his friend Rotwang, the inventor of genius largely responsible for the construction of the city. Joh Fredersen becomes alienated from his son when Freder discovers what the machines are doing to people. Freder meets a woman named Maria, a charismatic leader who offers the oppressed of Metropolis hope for change. Those who run Metropolis are its head. Those who work the machines are Metropolis’s hands. To mediate between the brain and the hands a heart is needed, and she tells them a mediator will arise who will fulfill that function.
Maria wants peaceful change but once revolutions are set in motion violence and destruction inevitably follow.
There is also a false Maria, a robot created by Rotwang. Rotwang has his own agenda in regard to the future of Metropolis.
It’s many many years since I’ve seen the movie so it’s difficult for me to compare the book and the movie. What does strike me about the book is the extent of the religious imagery. While the story can be (and has been) seen as a critique of capitalism I’m inclined to see that as a very simplistic explanation. The novel at least seems to me to reflect a horror of revolution, doubtless a reaction to the brutality and viciousness of the Russian Revolution. While the machines are monsters devouring human beings, von Harbou depicts the mob violence inseparable from revolution as being even more monstrous.
Freder certainly seems to be a Christ figure, with Maria being perhaps both the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist. Whatever von Harbou’s religious beliefs may have been Lang was certainly a Catholic, and identified himself as such throughout his life. The quite overt Catholic themes may therefore have originated with him. Lang and von Harbou had co-written the screenplay so that while the novel was von Harbou’s work alone it’s likely that these Catholic themes were carried over from the movie.
Much of the impact of the movies comes from the extraordinary visuals but von Harbou does an effective job in conveying the character of Metropolis by purely verbal means.
There’s perhaps just a touch more sentimenality in the novel than I recall from the film.
The movie’s status as one of the great dystopian science fiction tales is secure. Thea von Harbou’s novel deserves to be recognised as an important work of science fiction in its on right. It’s also a relatively rare and therefore interesting example of German science fiction. Recommended.
She had in fact written several novels prior to her marriage to Lang and had been an actress as well. While Lang left Germany in the early 30s von Harbou remained and her career in the wartime German film industry is rather controversial.
The city of Metropolis is dominated by the will of Joh Fredersen. This is a vision of a city of the future, a city of machines. The machines require people to operate them, and the machines consume their operators. Their appetite is limitless. There is an underground city beneath Metropolis which provides the machines with the human they require. The upper city is a kind of playground for the rich, with sex and drugs being the main item on the menu.
Joh Fredersen is not a particularly happy man. His wife died giving birth to his son Freder. He had stolen his wife from his friend Rotwang, the inventor of genius largely responsible for the construction of the city. Joh Fredersen becomes alienated from his son when Freder discovers what the machines are doing to people. Freder meets a woman named Maria, a charismatic leader who offers the oppressed of Metropolis hope for change. Those who run Metropolis are its head. Those who work the machines are Metropolis’s hands. To mediate between the brain and the hands a heart is needed, and she tells them a mediator will arise who will fulfill that function.
Maria wants peaceful change but once revolutions are set in motion violence and destruction inevitably follow.
There is also a false Maria, a robot created by Rotwang. Rotwang has his own agenda in regard to the future of Metropolis.
It’s many many years since I’ve seen the movie so it’s difficult for me to compare the book and the movie. What does strike me about the book is the extent of the religious imagery. While the story can be (and has been) seen as a critique of capitalism I’m inclined to see that as a very simplistic explanation. The novel at least seems to me to reflect a horror of revolution, doubtless a reaction to the brutality and viciousness of the Russian Revolution. While the machines are monsters devouring human beings, von Harbou depicts the mob violence inseparable from revolution as being even more monstrous.
Freder certainly seems to be a Christ figure, with Maria being perhaps both the Virgin Mary and John the Baptist. Whatever von Harbou’s religious beliefs may have been Lang was certainly a Catholic, and identified himself as such throughout his life. The quite overt Catholic themes may therefore have originated with him. Lang and von Harbou had co-written the screenplay so that while the novel was von Harbou’s work alone it’s likely that these Catholic themes were carried over from the movie.
Much of the impact of the movies comes from the extraordinary visuals but von Harbou does an effective job in conveying the character of Metropolis by purely verbal means.
There’s perhaps just a touch more sentimenality in the novel than I recall from the film.
The movie’s status as one of the great dystopian science fiction tales is secure. Thea von Harbou’s novel deserves to be recognised as an important work of science fiction in its on right. It’s also a relatively rare and therefore interesting example of German science fiction. Recommended.
July 16, 2010
I suggest the book Metropolis as an interesting supplement to the great silent movie. As a sci-fi novel in its own right, however, it’s... horrible.
Much of it involves characters telling each other about major events that happened off-screen. Rarely does the reader get to tag along with the action unless a Fredersen is right there, and often not even then. There’s actually a chapter in which Freder tells Josaphat about when his friend Jan told Freder about Futura’s debute into society. Nested telling: I could not make this up.
On top of that, when von Harbou writes a passage she likes, she reuses it. I don’t mean a short phrase; I mean things like “Transparent skin was stretched over the slender joints, which gleamed beneath it like dull silver. Fingers, snow-white and fleshless...” Once or twice a novel, that’s a motif. Once or twice a chapter, that’s annoying.
Taken in a vacuum, the book doesn’t have much going for it. However, it is extremely interesting to get into some of the characters heads in a way you just can’t in a movie, particularly Joh’s and Rotwang’s.
In the movie, Joh Frederson was just kind of... blah. “I’m here and I’m heartless.” In the book you really get to see what a profoundly messed up man he is. It’s not just that he’s cold and calculating; he has strayed so far from humanity that he’s forgotten that he got lost. He feels that emptiness, but all of his attempts to fill it just make the situation worse because he is so far off.
The character who best benefits from the extra attention, though, is Rotwang. In the movie he was standard issue mad scientist number 37. Rawr, Rotwang smash. In the book, Rotwang is not villainous at all. He is purely a victim, partly of Joh Fredersen, and partly of the fact that he is a huge tool who cannot pass up a good intellectual challenge. “I’ll hate you to my dying day, Joh Fredersen! Never again will-- Oooh, is that a triple-encoded cryptogram? Let me see that. I bet I can crack that for you.” He hates Joh with a passion, but gosh darnnit, Joh brings the best puzzles. Rotwang just can’t pass up the challenges, no matter how likely they are to destroy him in the end.
So, in summary, if you liked the 1920s movie, and you’d like to know what was going on in those scenes that are missing or what exactly is going through Joh’s mind, Metropolis worth a read. If you’re looking for good vintage sci-fi, keep looking.
Much of it involves characters telling each other about major events that happened off-screen. Rarely does the reader get to tag along with the action unless a Fredersen is right there, and often not even then. There’s actually a chapter in which Freder tells Josaphat about when his friend Jan told Freder about Futura’s debute into society. Nested telling: I could not make this up.
On top of that, when von Harbou writes a passage she likes, she reuses it. I don’t mean a short phrase; I mean things like “Transparent skin was stretched over the slender joints, which gleamed beneath it like dull silver. Fingers, snow-white and fleshless...” Once or twice a novel, that’s a motif. Once or twice a chapter, that’s annoying.
Taken in a vacuum, the book doesn’t have much going for it. However, it is extremely interesting to get into some of the characters heads in a way you just can’t in a movie, particularly Joh’s and Rotwang’s.
In the movie, Joh Frederson was just kind of... blah. “I’m here and I’m heartless.” In the book you really get to see what a profoundly messed up man he is. It’s not just that he’s cold and calculating; he has strayed so far from humanity that he’s forgotten that he got lost. He feels that emptiness, but all of his attempts to fill it just make the situation worse because he is so far off.
The character who best benefits from the extra attention, though, is Rotwang. In the movie he was standard issue mad scientist number 37. Rawr, Rotwang smash. In the book, Rotwang is not villainous at all. He is purely a victim, partly of Joh Fredersen, and partly of the fact that he is a huge tool who cannot pass up a good intellectual challenge. “I’ll hate you to my dying day, Joh Fredersen! Never again will-- Oooh, is that a triple-encoded cryptogram? Let me see that. I bet I can crack that for you.” He hates Joh with a passion, but gosh darnnit, Joh brings the best puzzles. Rotwang just can’t pass up the challenges, no matter how likely they are to destroy him in the end.
So, in summary, if you liked the 1920s movie, and you’d like to know what was going on in those scenes that are missing or what exactly is going through Joh’s mind, Metropolis worth a read. If you’re looking for good vintage sci-fi, keep looking.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
November 21, 2020
A very ambitious and enigmatic novel treating the redemption of a society. Von Harbou creates a world which is ‘perfect’ and ‘flawless’ superficially, but which is built upon exploitation and cruelty. For the privileged the society is as hedonistic as Sodom. For the workers and masses it is a crushing torture. Plainly she is commenting on the ideal of an urban industrialized society, and saying that, in her opinion, we will never arrive there from the place we have started. In fact, to get there, she judges, we should raze what we have to the ground and start over from a place more humane and loving, one less obsessed with machines and efficiency.
Given that the workers and masses themes are ones I am particularly interested in and enjoy exploring through reading, I think it notable that basically I fucking hated this book. I almost gave up on it like six times, but each time Von Harbou would suddenly rein in her laborious descriptions and sophomoric sentimentality and I was able to keep on. Also, I want to watch the movie; something I’ve never been able to do for more than five minutes because it's silent and I’ve not acquired a taste for that kind of cinema. I thought the book would aid me in this regard. These two random facts made it possible for me to plod on rather grudgingly and finish.
Despite its outsized ambition and mysteriousness, the book ends up reading like a bad treatment for a disaster film fluffed out with Biblical pretentions. Metropolis is melodramatic pulp.
Given that the workers and masses themes are ones I am particularly interested in and enjoy exploring through reading, I think it notable that basically I fucking hated this book. I almost gave up on it like six times, but each time Von Harbou would suddenly rein in her laborious descriptions and sophomoric sentimentality and I was able to keep on. Also, I want to watch the movie; something I’ve never been able to do for more than five minutes because it's silent and I’ve not acquired a taste for that kind of cinema. I thought the book would aid me in this regard. These two random facts made it possible for me to plod on rather grudgingly and finish.
Despite its outsized ambition and mysteriousness, the book ends up reading like a bad treatment for a disaster film fluffed out with Biblical pretentions. Metropolis is melodramatic pulp.
May 16, 2019
Ich bin sehr hin- und hergerissen. Einerseits hat die Erzählung eine wichtige Botschaft und auch die einzelnen Szenen sind gut. Andererseits ist der Schreibstil über weite Strecken furchtbar. Heutzutage schlägt jeder die Hände über den Kopf, wenn so viel erzählt wird und nicht gezeigt.
Ich bereue es aber nicht, es gelesen zu haben, also runde ich auf 3 Sterne auf :)
Ich bereue es aber nicht, es gelesen zu haben, also runde ich auf 3 Sterne auf :)
February 7, 2012
Absolutely loved the book as much as I loved the movie. The language is a bit strange though, there are no dialogues and the atmosphere is stifling at times due to an overdose of exalted phrases. The characters are bombastic, everything they say or do is filled with great passion adjacent to madness. I almost had a feeling that I'm reading a script for a theatre piece. Theatre actors are usually exaggerating every single movement or word... so do the characters of Metropolis.
I haven't read more original story for a long time. I never really liked sci-fi books/movies so I was quite skeptical in the beginning but as a fan of old cinema I had to watch the screening of Thea von Harbou's novel if only to have my own opinion about it. This one was slightly different from all the sci-fi that I've seen. Maybe because the author was born in times when technology was just starting to take a form of what it is nowadays but... I liked her vision so much more. No spaceships or stupid robots walking down the streets. No, none of those were present. There is only one robot and I can stand that. The author couldn't have seen all those things so, for the sake of her book, she's imagined every single machine, building and any kind of innovation. And Metropolis came to life...
As for the main story... Freder and Maria are so perfect that almost godlike. They're both young, beautiful, mellow and love each other immensely. This romance feels so unreal that is even more likeable. We all dream of such love, deep in our hearts we're sick of what we can see around us, on TV, magazines and so on. Constant betrayals, affairs, children born out of wedlock. This love story gives us hope, even though it's so unreal and the couple falls in love so fast that before we even begin to realise what has actually happened between those two, here they are: kissing and holding hands. Thought to be complete strangers. Love by first sight.
Every single person in this book is memorable and unique. Enough for me to start reading. I love the variety of different stories of different people from different worlds. Not too much of names to remember is a huge advantage, too. Especially for someone like me, who has difficulties remembering who is who.
I don't want to spoil the fun of reading this book, most of all to those who are not familiar with the movie. So I'll just say - a must read before you die. Seriously :)
I haven't read more original story for a long time. I never really liked sci-fi books/movies so I was quite skeptical in the beginning but as a fan of old cinema I had to watch the screening of Thea von Harbou's novel if only to have my own opinion about it. This one was slightly different from all the sci-fi that I've seen. Maybe because the author was born in times when technology was just starting to take a form of what it is nowadays but... I liked her vision so much more. No spaceships or stupid robots walking down the streets. No, none of those were present. There is only one robot and I can stand that. The author couldn't have seen all those things so, for the sake of her book, she's imagined every single machine, building and any kind of innovation. And Metropolis came to life...
As for the main story... Freder and Maria are so perfect that almost godlike. They're both young, beautiful, mellow and love each other immensely. This romance feels so unreal that is even more likeable. We all dream of such love, deep in our hearts we're sick of what we can see around us, on TV, magazines and so on. Constant betrayals, affairs, children born out of wedlock. This love story gives us hope, even though it's so unreal and the couple falls in love so fast that before we even begin to realise what has actually happened between those two, here they are: kissing and holding hands. Thought to be complete strangers. Love by first sight.
Every single person in this book is memorable and unique. Enough for me to start reading. I love the variety of different stories of different people from different worlds. Not too much of names to remember is a huge advantage, too. Especially for someone like me, who has difficulties remembering who is who.
I don't want to spoil the fun of reading this book, most of all to those who are not familiar with the movie. So I'll just say - a must read before you die. Seriously :)
March 20, 2022
A source text for The Burnt City by Punchdrunk
Not recommended. This is a novelisation of a screenplay, not a novel, so it is written awkwardly. Also, the same author made the screenplay for the famous film but it is very different, making me wonder why there is a difference. Only interesting from seeing its influence on dystopia as a genre or from the perspective of seeking the history of cinema, theatre or the stories of the Weimar Republic. A messy plot. I am with HG Wells on this one, it's high art until you pay attention to the stupid and derivative storyline. Read this to understand the source material for The Burnt City, a new play opening in London next week.
Not recommended. This is a novelisation of a screenplay, not a novel, so it is written awkwardly. Also, the same author made the screenplay for the famous film but it is very different, making me wonder why there is a difference. Only interesting from seeing its influence on dystopia as a genre or from the perspective of seeking the history of cinema, theatre or the stories of the Weimar Republic. A messy plot. I am with HG Wells on this one, it's high art until you pay attention to the stupid and derivative storyline. Read this to understand the source material for The Burnt City, a new play opening in London next week.
February 15, 2023
Η απλοϊκή μεσσιανική ιδέα του βιβλίου δύσκολα μπορεί να αποδοθεί διηγηματικά με πλουσιότερο τρόπο. Η χειμαρρώδης πρόζα της Βόν Χάρμπου συμπαρασύρει τα πάντα και δείχνει πολύ ανώτερη από τα σύγχρονα σκουπίδια του σωρού. Οι όποιες πολιτικές προεκτάσεις του κειμένου μπορεί να ενοχλήσουν κάποιους υπερ-ευαίσθητους αλλά κρίμα, εγώ πιστεύω ότι ένα έργο τέχνης μπορεί να αποστασιοποιηθεί από όλα αυτά. Αν θέλετε πολιτική διαβάστε πολιτικά κείμενα, όχι λογοτεχνία. Εξαιρετική και η έκδοση της "Αλεξάνδρειας", πραγματικό κόσμημα στη κάθε βιβλιοθήκη.
February 13, 2019
I had high expectations for the novel of a film that I consider a masterpiece, the visual encapsulation of my favorite era of science fiction. But though not a bad novel, it did disappoint, and not just because of my association of it with an iconic film. Taken on its own merit as a work of literature, it is mediocre.
The reviews on Goodreads, both negative and positive, are spot on. Thea von Harbou was at home writing screenplays for melodrama, and it shows in the bombastic and histrionic tone. In the hands of a less talented director and more modest budget, a film based on this novel could easily have been relegated to B-movie status. The characters are cartoonish tropes, delivering soap opera dialogue as though each exclamation point was worth gold. The author was thinking of the theater stage when writing the actions and speech of her characters. All the swooning and proclamation and wooden characterization grew tiresome. There was also a religious slant to the work not present in the film that seemed forced and inserted rather than an integral part of the plot.
Overall, as a fan of Radium-age sci-fi, I would have been remiss to not give this book a try, and overall I was rewarded with a bit of fast-paced action, unrealistic romance, and dark atmosphere. But in this case, there is far more superior representation of this story available in the visual medium.
The reviews on Goodreads, both negative and positive, are spot on. Thea von Harbou was at home writing screenplays for melodrama, and it shows in the bombastic and histrionic tone. In the hands of a less talented director and more modest budget, a film based on this novel could easily have been relegated to B-movie status. The characters are cartoonish tropes, delivering soap opera dialogue as though each exclamation point was worth gold. The author was thinking of the theater stage when writing the actions and speech of her characters. All the swooning and proclamation and wooden characterization grew tiresome. There was also a religious slant to the work not present in the film that seemed forced and inserted rather than an integral part of the plot.
Overall, as a fan of Radium-age sci-fi, I would have been remiss to not give this book a try, and overall I was rewarded with a bit of fast-paced action, unrealistic romance, and dark atmosphere. But in this case, there is far more superior representation of this story available in the visual medium.
March 23, 2024
Pionera en el género de ciencia ficción y aunque no es mi género favorito, reconozco la consideración que tiene esta obra hoy en día como todo un clásico ya por su crítica social y la visión de su autora, aun vigente por recordarnos las consecuencias que tienen en la humanidad aquellos temas atemporales como la desigualdad, el abuso de poder y la falta de humanidad en una sociedad dominada por el progreso tecnológico y el poder político, religioso y/o social.
Quizá para algunos esta historia sea sencilla, en el sentido de que tenemos una metrópolis futurista dividida en dos clases sociales: la élite privilegiada que vive espléndidamente y goza de riquezas y comodidad, y los trabajadores que mantienen la maquinaria en funcionamiento, con condiciones deplorables y que viven bajo tierra, sin más conocimiento que el cansancio, la sed y la cosificación.
Sin embargo, la narrativa de Thea von Harbou me pareció simbólica y rica en detalles visuales, crea una atmósfera que no siempre he visto en este género, quizá por sus personajes emotivos pero sobre todo por las situaciones intensas y llenas de motivos, que por momentos logra llevarnos a las inmediaciones de las mentes y almas de los personajes, hasta que todo se ponga a prueba, incluso el motivo más intrínseco y oscuro de todo aquello que sostiene el orden social de Metrópolis.
Quizá para algunos esta historia sea sencilla, en el sentido de que tenemos una metrópolis futurista dividida en dos clases sociales: la élite privilegiada que vive espléndidamente y goza de riquezas y comodidad, y los trabajadores que mantienen la maquinaria en funcionamiento, con condiciones deplorables y que viven bajo tierra, sin más conocimiento que el cansancio, la sed y la cosificación.
Sin embargo, la narrativa de Thea von Harbou me pareció simbólica y rica en detalles visuales, crea una atmósfera que no siempre he visto en este género, quizá por sus personajes emotivos pero sobre todo por las situaciones intensas y llenas de motivos, que por momentos logra llevarnos a las inmediaciones de las mentes y almas de los personajes, hasta que todo se ponga a prueba, incluso el motivo más intrínseco y oscuro de todo aquello que sostiene el orden social de Metrópolis.
December 8, 2017
When looking for novels that I have already seen the movie, I was excited to see Metropolis. I enjoy watching older movies and silent films are rather interesting in their limited words but needing to explain the plot. I have several silent films on my list; another 1925 silent movie "The Wind" by Dorothy Scarborough which was a terrific read for those interested. With both silent films the novel has much more and "The Wind" was more terrifying and different feel at points but Metropolis was fairly close to the movie which is not surprising since Thea von Harbou and director Fritz Lang were married and she knew a movie would come after the release. Certain scenarios had to be less complex but after watching the Kino 2 hours 28 minute version it basically rings true. I saw the movie over a decade before and while reading I remembered more as I read and had forgotten.
I enjoy reading older books for many reasons and one is the time traveling back in history where a book or film will take you. This book was written in a very difficult time in Germany after the war and the effect that had on society, religion and politics. I especially love reading a novel where there is a religious element and the forces of good and evil which was present here. The social divide of the upper society and the slaves that run the machines or the machines that run them, who live underground in a sunless city is remarkable. If you have seen the movie you can not forget the entrance and exit of the workers to the elevators which is emotionally provoking.
A brief plot not to spoil either the movie or the read; The setting is the year 2025; Freder is the son of the so called master of Metropolis but he has more in common with his dead mother. He sees things are pointless at times and there must be something more to life which the sight of Maria from the beings below awakens in him. There are several typos which I reported to Kindle but great navigation to the chapters
A couple more comments about the movie; Brigitte Helm's portrayal of Maria and the robot was superb. Afred Abel as Joh Frederson and Rudolf Klein-Rogge as Rotwang was quite good but I found Gustav Frohlich's Freder a little to over acted at times but quite enjoyable all in all. When I read a novel I generally don't see a face in my mind but as I read the person nondescript looks but inner spirit shines through nonetheless seeing the characters that way does not make any less to me. Having seen the movie the first time so long ago I could not remember the actors.
I enjoy reading older books for many reasons and one is the time traveling back in history where a book or film will take you. This book was written in a very difficult time in Germany after the war and the effect that had on society, religion and politics. I especially love reading a novel where there is a religious element and the forces of good and evil which was present here. The social divide of the upper society and the slaves that run the machines or the machines that run them, who live underground in a sunless city is remarkable. If you have seen the movie you can not forget the entrance and exit of the workers to the elevators which is emotionally provoking.
A brief plot not to spoil either the movie or the read; The setting is the year 2025; Freder is the son of the so called master of Metropolis but he has more in common with his dead mother. He sees things are pointless at times and there must be something more to life which the sight of Maria from the beings below awakens in him. There are several typos which I reported to Kindle but great navigation to the chapters
A couple more comments about the movie; Brigitte Helm's portrayal of Maria and the robot was superb. Afred Abel as Joh Frederson and Rudolf Klein-Rogge as Rotwang was quite good but I found Gustav Frohlich's Freder a little to over acted at times but quite enjoyable all in all. When I read a novel I generally don't see a face in my mind but as I read the person nondescript looks but inner spirit shines through nonetheless seeing the characters that way does not make any less to me. Having seen the movie the first time so long ago I could not remember the actors.
December 17, 2016
Metropolis is one of my all-time favorite movies. Reading this helped me appreciate the depth of what Lang was portraying in that movie. The story is mostly the same: the main difference is a deeper look at the characters and their motivations, since the novel offers more dialog and introspection than a silent movie's intertitles. Definitely worth reading if you like the film.
January 22, 2023
Loved it! I've seen the film several times, I don't know why it took me so long to finally read the book!
August 8, 2015
Well, that was good.
The use of personification, repetition, and vivid, vivid imagery make this quite an enjoyable read.
The repetition is like a coda, drilling into the reader the motifs, such as the blue linen of the workers, with the black caps pressed hard against the hair, and the hard soled shoes.
An interesting thought, is that although it is nearly exactly the same plot as the movie, it's a totally different story then I remember. Could be me growing up.
Some issues; the end is somewhat anti-climatic, and if you look deep enough you can see a mild emergence of early fascism (maybe I'm seeing this better after coming off of reading The Coming Race), as well as the reassurance of the religion of the mysterious house-builder ("the copper-red Seal of Solomon, the pentagram," repeated at least twenty times in middle of the book), is somewhat disconcerting. (Also, isn't the Seal of Solomon six-pointed?). In general, there is a lot more religious imagery here than in the movie.
But it's very enjoyable. Dark and gothic, with exciting action scenes. Great character development for Joh Fredersen. And the characters that needed to stay flat, did so. Definitely a key book in early science fiction. Very clearly related to the movie's style, of German Expressionism.
An interesting thought, I was trying to look up quotes in the original German, to compare or to see. But in Germany this book is still in copyright (pma +70), whereas it is not in Canada (and other pma +50 countries). So this is an interesting case where the translation of a book is available in the public domain [BUT NOT IN ENGLAND, HINT HINT], but not yet the original work (the rarity of interest for German-language publications outside of Germany being the driving factor there). Just a thought.
The use of personification, repetition, and vivid, vivid imagery make this quite an enjoyable read.
The repetition is like a coda, drilling into the reader the motifs, such as the blue linen of the workers, with the black caps pressed hard against the hair, and the hard soled shoes.
An interesting thought, is that although it is nearly exactly the same plot as the movie, it's a totally different story then I remember. Could be me growing up.
Some issues; the end is somewhat anti-climatic, and if you look deep enough you can see a mild emergence of early fascism (maybe I'm seeing this better after coming off of reading The Coming Race), as well as the reassurance of the religion of the mysterious house-builder ("the copper-red Seal of Solomon, the pentagram," repeated at least twenty times in middle of the book), is somewhat disconcerting. (Also, isn't the Seal of Solomon six-pointed?). In general, there is a lot more religious imagery here than in the movie.
But it's very enjoyable. Dark and gothic, with exciting action scenes. Great character development for Joh Fredersen. And the characters that needed to stay flat, did so. Definitely a key book in early science fiction. Very clearly related to the movie's style, of German Expressionism.
An interesting thought, I was trying to look up quotes in the original German, to compare or to see. But in Germany this book is still in copyright (pma +70), whereas it is not in Canada (and other pma +50 countries). So this is an interesting case where the translation of a book is available in the public domain [BUT NOT IN ENGLAND, HINT HINT], but not yet the original work (the rarity of interest for German-language publications outside of Germany being the driving factor there). Just a thought.
November 17, 2014
-Obra revolucionaria en varios sentidos.-
Género. Ciencia-Ficción.
Lo que nos cuenta. Freder, hijo del amo y señor de la ciclópea ciudad de Metrópolis Joh Fredersen, escapa de la vigilancia de su guardián y guardaespaldas Slim haciéndose pasar por el obrero 11811 y desencadena una serie imprevisible de acontecimientos en la ciudad. Novela escrita por la autora a partir del guión de la película homónima, escrito a medias por el director Fritz Lang y su esposa, la propia Thea (con discusión entre los expertos sobre el orden real de acontecimientos).
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
Género. Ciencia-Ficción.
Lo que nos cuenta. Freder, hijo del amo y señor de la ciclópea ciudad de Metrópolis Joh Fredersen, escapa de la vigilancia de su guardián y guardaespaldas Slim haciéndose pasar por el obrero 11811 y desencadena una serie imprevisible de acontecimientos en la ciudad. Novela escrita por la autora a partir del guión de la película homónima, escrito a medias por el director Fritz Lang y su esposa, la propia Thea (con discusión entre los expertos sobre el orden real de acontecimientos).
¿Quiere saber más de este libro, sin spoilers? Visite:
http://librosdeolethros.blogspot.com/...
January 13, 2019
This was written as a companion piece to the 1927 German expressionist film of the same name. I love the film and wanted so much to love the novel...
Unfortunately, it feels like the first draft of something that had potential to be great. I kinda wish I could edit it, myself! There are some truly great lines in here. I swear, there's a spark of genius buried under all the rubble. It's the worst book I ever loved.
Unfortunately, it feels like the first draft of something that had potential to be great. I kinda wish I could edit it, myself! There are some truly great lines in here. I swear, there's a spark of genius buried under all the rubble. It's the worst book I ever loved.
September 3, 2018
Aparente distopía que va mutando en fábula apocalíptica y redentora. En la creación del mundo futuro de sus primeras páginas encuentra sus mejores momentos, así como en la descripción de la pesadilla de la catedral. La segunda parte, más llena de acción, no mejora el tono, que es mucho más apropiado cuando emplea imágenes poderosas por un lado y la elipsis por otro.
June 28, 2021
Es necesario que todo aquel que se diga amante de la ciencia ficción lea esta novela.
Años pasan, y los mensajes siguen. Asusta un poco constatar que nada cambia.
Un gran complemento de la película, ambos ya camino al centenario.
La novela es una adaptación del guión, de la misma autora.
Alemana, obviamente.
"Entre el cerebro y el músculo, debe mediar el corazón"
Años pasan, y los mensajes siguen. Asusta un poco constatar que nada cambia.
Un gran complemento de la película, ambos ya camino al centenario.
La novela es una adaptación del guión, de la misma autora.
Alemana, obviamente.
"Entre el cerebro y el músculo, debe mediar el corazón"
May 21, 2019
I read it a long time ago but I have a good memory of this reading.
January 8, 2020
I have to say I really enjoyed this book, although the heavy-handed language took some getting used to. I mainly like it because it does fill in the gaps left by big chunks of the movie being cut out and lost. There is a lot more to the relationship between Frederson and Rotwang and Hel than we see in the movie. There is a very interesting scene between Frederson and his old mother, showing that he had become so distanced from other people's needs that even she did not understand him anymore. There was also a fantastic scene in Yoshiwara, where Georgi takes a drug that has some kind of telepathic element to it and drives everyone around him crazy. I think there was more to Georgi's story in the movie, but most of those parts were cut out and lost.
It was interesting to find out that even small details in the movie were taken directly from the book, such as the way Frederson puts his hands on his head and falls to his knees when he sees Freder and Rotwang fighting. I noticed lots more small details like that that had me picturing the movie scene while I read the book. Not too surprising, really, since Von Harbou did the novel and then the screenplay. But interesting nonetheless.
The imagery in the book, although rendered in Von Harbou's somewhat over the top hyperbolic prose, was very evocative and imaginative, allowing the reader to picture the fantastic futuristic scenes vividly. Futura/Parody was a much more interesting-looking creature than the robot they managed to come up with for the movie. All metal and glass with a beautiful ethereal quality that belied her evil insanity. I've wondered if she turned out that way because her creator had lost his reason over the loss of Hel and transferred his mental instability to her.
The underground city was likewise more awesome in the book than they could really create for the movie, though the movie version was not bad. In the book it was called one of the wonders of the world and had apartment blocks, streets, elevator shafts, arched ceiling with lights all carved out of the rock and protected by pumps which held back a powerful underground river, which was harnessed to generate electricity. These details help to explain the destruction of the town in the movie. When the power cut off the pumps stopped working and the water rushed in.
I just remembered to add this- In the movie the violent revolt of the workers brought about by the fake Maria is explained by the fact that she was basically crazy and Rotwang lost control of her. He even says so to the real Maria while he holds her captive. Frederson had planned to use the fake Maria to control the workers, probably by stalling their stirrings toward revolution somehow, telling her what to say to keep the workers calm and working. Then she went rogue. Frederson tries to stop the destruction when he tells Grot to protect the heart machine at all costs. In the book, though, it seems that Frederson wants the revolution to happen and that that was the real reason he wanted a fake Maria made to stir them up. He tells Grot to LET the workers have at the heart machine. Why? Is it because he wanted to teach the workers a lesson and put them in their place? Did he want them to accidentally kill their children? Did he care that the underground city would not be the only one destroyed, but that the above-ground masterpiece of Metropolis would also suffer and the rich people would be in danger? I'm not sure I get that, unless Frederson was so distraught about his son and mother disowning him that he was willing to bring their whole world, and himself, to ruin. In any case, the movie Joh Frederson was a much more likable character than the one in the book. Though the book Frederson did redeem himself at last. Just one thing bothering me and something that I thought the movie improved over the book.
All in all, this was a great read and if you are a fan of the movie, you ought to read it at least once.
It was interesting to find out that even small details in the movie were taken directly from the book, such as the way Frederson puts his hands on his head and falls to his knees when he sees Freder and Rotwang fighting. I noticed lots more small details like that that had me picturing the movie scene while I read the book. Not too surprising, really, since Von Harbou did the novel and then the screenplay. But interesting nonetheless.
The imagery in the book, although rendered in Von Harbou's somewhat over the top hyperbolic prose, was very evocative and imaginative, allowing the reader to picture the fantastic futuristic scenes vividly. Futura/Parody was a much more interesting-looking creature than the robot they managed to come up with for the movie. All metal and glass with a beautiful ethereal quality that belied her evil insanity. I've wondered if she turned out that way because her creator had lost his reason over the loss of Hel and transferred his mental instability to her.
The underground city was likewise more awesome in the book than they could really create for the movie, though the movie version was not bad. In the book it was called one of the wonders of the world and had apartment blocks, streets, elevator shafts, arched ceiling with lights all carved out of the rock and protected by pumps which held back a powerful underground river, which was harnessed to generate electricity. These details help to explain the destruction of the town in the movie. When the power cut off the pumps stopped working and the water rushed in.
I just remembered to add this- In the movie the violent revolt of the workers brought about by the fake Maria is explained by the fact that she was basically crazy and Rotwang lost control of her. He even says so to the real Maria while he holds her captive. Frederson had planned to use the fake Maria to control the workers, probably by stalling their stirrings toward revolution somehow, telling her what to say to keep the workers calm and working. Then she went rogue. Frederson tries to stop the destruction when he tells Grot to protect the heart machine at all costs. In the book, though, it seems that Frederson wants the revolution to happen and that that was the real reason he wanted a fake Maria made to stir them up. He tells Grot to LET the workers have at the heart machine. Why? Is it because he wanted to teach the workers a lesson and put them in their place? Did he want them to accidentally kill their children? Did he care that the underground city would not be the only one destroyed, but that the above-ground masterpiece of Metropolis would also suffer and the rich people would be in danger? I'm not sure I get that, unless Frederson was so distraught about his son and mother disowning him that he was willing to bring their whole world, and himself, to ruin. In any case, the movie Joh Frederson was a much more likable character than the one in the book. Though the book Frederson did redeem himself at last. Just one thing bothering me and something that I thought the movie improved over the book.
All in all, this was a great read and if you are a fan of the movie, you ought to read it at least once.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
April 10, 2016
2015 Reading Challenge:
A Book With A One-Word Title, A Book Written By A Female Author, A Book Originally Written In A Different Language
-------------------
I'm having a tough time trying to figure out whether I really liked this book, or if I thought it was "just okay". On one hand, there is some really powerful imagery here, and I now have a much clearer idea of these characters' motives, Rotwang and Fredersen in particular. Fritz Lang's silent film, while a grand and magnificent spectacle, has been so heavily edited and censored over the years that many of the subtler, but still important, details are lost in the final cut. Even in the versions that contain some lost footage, many crucial scenes are glossed over with a wall of expositional text. This being a novel, naturally, there is much more room for detail and scene-setting.
On the other hand, the prose and the dialogue felt stilted and unnatural at times. Maybe this was just a bad translation (along with some jarring typos). Maybe it's just the expressionistic style. Maybe it's a combination of bad translation AND expressionistic style. Either way, I feel that the writing in this book polarizes a lot of readers: those who love it, and those who hate it. I personally was a little turned off by it, but the story itself is so wonderfully mythic and archetypal (like a classical myth dressed up in the Art Deco of the Roaring Twenties with some steampunk thrown in for good measure) that I was able to look somewhat past the clunky prose and hammy dialogue.
There's also a lot more religious imagery here than in the movie. Whether that's good or bad is entirely up to the reader. I personally found it to be a little much at times, but it did make for some really intense dream sequences.
Oh, and Futura/Parody the robot (she has a name in the book) is a whole lot creepier here than in the film. Keep in mind that I like porcelain dolls, just not ones that are half-formed, person-sized, capable of speech, and strong enough to break my arm.
TLDR; so what are my final thoughts? I think I would recommend this, but with a disclaimer of caution. The story is great and so are some of the characters, but the sometimes clunky prose and dialogue and ham-handed religious imagery could be a potential turn-off. I also recommend seeing the film before reading this, so you can have an idea of what you're getting into.
A Book With A One-Word Title, A Book Written By A Female Author, A Book Originally Written In A Different Language
-------------------
I'm having a tough time trying to figure out whether I really liked this book, or if I thought it was "just okay". On one hand, there is some really powerful imagery here, and I now have a much clearer idea of these characters' motives, Rotwang and Fredersen in particular. Fritz Lang's silent film, while a grand and magnificent spectacle, has been so heavily edited and censored over the years that many of the subtler, but still important, details are lost in the final cut. Even in the versions that contain some lost footage, many crucial scenes are glossed over with a wall of expositional text. This being a novel, naturally, there is much more room for detail and scene-setting.
On the other hand, the prose and the dialogue felt stilted and unnatural at times. Maybe this was just a bad translation (along with some jarring typos). Maybe it's just the expressionistic style. Maybe it's a combination of bad translation AND expressionistic style. Either way, I feel that the writing in this book polarizes a lot of readers: those who love it, and those who hate it. I personally was a little turned off by it, but the story itself is so wonderfully mythic and archetypal (like a classical myth dressed up in the Art Deco of the Roaring Twenties with some steampunk thrown in for good measure) that I was able to look somewhat past the clunky prose and hammy dialogue.
There's also a lot more religious imagery here than in the movie. Whether that's good or bad is entirely up to the reader. I personally found it to be a little much at times, but it did make for some really intense dream sequences.
Oh, and Futura/Parody the robot (she has a name in the book) is a whole lot creepier here than in the film. Keep in mind that I like porcelain dolls, just not ones that are half-formed, person-sized, capable of speech, and strong enough to break my arm.
TLDR; so what are my final thoughts? I think I would recommend this, but with a disclaimer of caution. The story is great and so are some of the characters, but the sometimes clunky prose and dialogue and ham-handed religious imagery could be a potential turn-off. I also recommend seeing the film before reading this, so you can have an idea of what you're getting into.
April 12, 2013
Admito que cuando decidí leer este libro lo hice con cierto temor. Aunque no he visto (aún) la película de Fritz Lang me imaginé que el libro sería pesado, arduo de leer y que, quizás, no lo acabaría.
Nada más errado. Es uno de los mejores libros que he leído este año.
Pese a que usa una prosa bastante grandilocuente, Thea Von Harbou (esposa de Lang), nos mete de lleno en este mundo futurista (según lo imaginó en al década del 20); en donde dos clases sociales totalmente opuestas viven en esta ciudad de 50 millones de habitantes. Por un lado están los trabajadores, oprimidos y casi mecanizados que se hunden y viven en las entrañas de la ciudad para operar a estas máquinas que son casi dioses. Por el otro lado tenemos a los amos, los dueños de metrópolis, “para quienes cada revolución de una máquina significaba oro”.
Metrópolis, la ciudad, fue creada por el esfuerzo y visión de una sola persona, Joh Fredersen, quien gobierne y regula esta vasta ciudad con mano de hierro y sin sentimientos, casi se diría que se ha convertido en una máquina más de esta ciudad.
Pero esta forma de vida, este supuesto equilibrio entre amos y obreros se vera trastornado por la presencia de una mujer, virginal llamada María (en todo el libro hay un gran acercamiento y alabanzas hacia el cristianismo o, en todo caso hacia dios y el catolicismo).
Esta mujer se gana inmediatamente el corazón de Freder, hijo de Joh Fredersen. Las profecías que María cuenta a sus miles de seguidores obreros es que pronto llegará un mediador entre los obreros y los amos...
Esto es el inicio del libro. Un libro plagado de referencias al cristianismo, al budismo (la vida recluida y envidiable de Freder y su, luego brutal salida al mundo me recordó una de las historias que leí sobre Buda), la lucha de clases, el maquinismo....
Es un libro intenso, muy bien escrito, los personajes aunque, en algunos casos grandilocuentes, son muy bien formados y detallados. Terminas por aspirar la atmósfera de Metrópolis y perderte en sus intrincadas calles y túneles.
Existen escenas realmente conmovedoras como la huida de María con los niños. Es de esas situaciones que se convierten en inolvidables.
Es, como repito, uno de los mejores libros de ciencia ficción que he leído. Ya sea para el curioso o el amante de este género, es una lectura necesaria.
Nada más errado. Es uno de los mejores libros que he leído este año.
Pese a que usa una prosa bastante grandilocuente, Thea Von Harbou (esposa de Lang), nos mete de lleno en este mundo futurista (según lo imaginó en al década del 20); en donde dos clases sociales totalmente opuestas viven en esta ciudad de 50 millones de habitantes. Por un lado están los trabajadores, oprimidos y casi mecanizados que se hunden y viven en las entrañas de la ciudad para operar a estas máquinas que son casi dioses. Por el otro lado tenemos a los amos, los dueños de metrópolis, “para quienes cada revolución de una máquina significaba oro”.
Metrópolis, la ciudad, fue creada por el esfuerzo y visión de una sola persona, Joh Fredersen, quien gobierne y regula esta vasta ciudad con mano de hierro y sin sentimientos, casi se diría que se ha convertido en una máquina más de esta ciudad.
Pero esta forma de vida, este supuesto equilibrio entre amos y obreros se vera trastornado por la presencia de una mujer, virginal llamada María (en todo el libro hay un gran acercamiento y alabanzas hacia el cristianismo o, en todo caso hacia dios y el catolicismo).
Esta mujer se gana inmediatamente el corazón de Freder, hijo de Joh Fredersen. Las profecías que María cuenta a sus miles de seguidores obreros es que pronto llegará un mediador entre los obreros y los amos...
Esto es el inicio del libro. Un libro plagado de referencias al cristianismo, al budismo (la vida recluida y envidiable de Freder y su, luego brutal salida al mundo me recordó una de las historias que leí sobre Buda), la lucha de clases, el maquinismo....
Es un libro intenso, muy bien escrito, los personajes aunque, en algunos casos grandilocuentes, son muy bien formados y detallados. Terminas por aspirar la atmósfera de Metrópolis y perderte en sus intrincadas calles y túneles.
Existen escenas realmente conmovedoras como la huida de María con los niños. Es de esas situaciones que se convierten en inolvidables.
Es, como repito, uno de los mejores libros de ciencia ficción que he leído. Ya sea para el curioso o el amante de este género, es una lectura necesaria.
June 17, 2012
books in translation can be a problem. Something doesn't quite work, is it the author, the translator, the editor, idomatic thought that doesn't translate well, culture that doesn't translate well?
In Metropolis, just read and enjoy, make notes, look things up later, then think about it.
You have to look things up to understand them. e.g. yoshiwara is Old Japan's red light district. In Japan there is a difference between "water trade" which is merely to entice and get riled up, and prostitution. The use of a yoshiwara in metropolis indicates activities that might not have gotten by the german censors as easily at the time. XXX would be the contemporary equivelant.
The mindset in Germany at the time this was written allowed for deeply religious themes alongside the themes implied by yoshiwara.
This is a book of strong themes, opposites, contrasts, and is comfortable being that.
This is a read the book, put it down, read it in five years and it is a different book. There is so much to look at: magic/science, faith/materialism, worker/elite, poverty/wealth, love/hate,... could go on, but take your pick of dynamics and watch 'em run.
Strong characters, one, two and three dimensional.
Early sifi.
recommend for later teens on.
If you are into sifi this is a gotta read.
pb
In Metropolis, just read and enjoy, make notes, look things up later, then think about it.
You have to look things up to understand them. e.g. yoshiwara is Old Japan's red light district. In Japan there is a difference between "water trade" which is merely to entice and get riled up, and prostitution. The use of a yoshiwara in metropolis indicates activities that might not have gotten by the german censors as easily at the time. XXX would be the contemporary equivelant.
The mindset in Germany at the time this was written allowed for deeply religious themes alongside the themes implied by yoshiwara.
This is a book of strong themes, opposites, contrasts, and is comfortable being that.
This is a read the book, put it down, read it in five years and it is a different book. There is so much to look at: magic/science, faith/materialism, worker/elite, poverty/wealth, love/hate,... could go on, but take your pick of dynamics and watch 'em run.
Strong characters, one, two and three dimensional.
Early sifi.
recommend for later teens on.
If you are into sifi this is a gotta read.
pb
July 27, 2011
Unfortunately the lack of an image does not give this book justice, its in fact a large format (over A4) with generous illustrations. this is the first reason why I gave it 4 stars since I agree with the other comments on this books that the use of English is sometimes a little hard going and they do like to labour the point. The other reason why I hold this book in high esteem is the film itself. I cannot help but think of the film fondly since I saw it years ago on VHS (it has subsequently been re-edited and re-released till it is reportedly near identical to its original release). I will not comment about the story as anyone who has heard of it will know of it but least to say if you want to own a copy Metropolis this I would recommend as being the one.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 240 reviews