NationStates Jolt Archive

I missed this news when it came out a couple of weeks ago: a complete print of Fritz Lang's silent sci-fi masterpiece Metropolis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017136/) has been found in Buenos Aires. This is amazing news for cinema nerds -- the original, "director's cut" of Metropolis was cut down about 25% a few months after it came out in 1927, and the vast majority of the cut footage has remained missing until now. (Many moviegoers who saw the film in its wide release in 1928 complained that the film didn't make any sense -- not surprising, given how much was cut! I actually have a reproduction of a poster from the 1928 release proclaiming the film to be "EXOTIC, EROTIC, ERRATIC" -- apparently the distributor tried to make the plot weakness into a selling point.)

Links: Film critic Roger Ebert reports (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/COMMENTARY/488633502) the find
Film.com enthuses (http://www.film.com/dvds/story/fritz-langs-lost-metropolis-rediscovered/21694018)
(Yes, I realize these were from weeks ago, I missed the story when it broke.)

Many of you may not have seen Metropolis, but it's worth a look if you're at all interested in movie history. Yes, it's a silent movie, and modern audiences often find the expressionistic style to be distracting as they're not used to it, but it was a pioneering film in terms of scale and effects, and many movies (especially Sci-Fi movies) have been heavily influenced by it. Also, it's not a hard movie to get into: Sexy Evil Lady Robot! Class Warfare! True Love! Ingmar Bergman it ain't.

So, this news got me thinking about other missing masterpieces, and how we may be discarding media now that future generations will say "How could they not have kept this?" The movie was kind of a flop when it came out, and movies weren't considered High Art in 1927, so nobody thought of archiving a print until too late. Sure, we're pretty good about preserving books now, and some movies, but tons of early TV shows and videogames are lost or nearly lost.

What do y'all think? Anything strike you as a present or future Missing Masterpiece? Does our ever-expanding internet mean that everything will be preserved, or do you think valuable stuff might be lost even if the "O RLY?" Owl survives?

My first thought when I heard this back when was, "Goddammit, how many 'restored editions of this fucking movie am I going to have to buy?"

My first thought when I heard this back when was, "Goddammit, how many 'restored editions of this fucking movie am I going to have to buy?"

Ah, yes, cinemaphilia is a cruel mistress, my friend. Hopefully the number will be "fewer than the number of Star Wars editions currently available."

I thought it was a 1080p version of Gay******s from Outer Space.

EDIT: Wordfilter...if you know what it is, you know what it is.

Whoo. I could conceivably justify seeing it now.

Whoo. I could conceivably justify seeing it now.
No you couldn't. Not when there are so many more interesting ways to spend two and a half hours, like painting your house or organizing your socks.

Your definition of interesting activities disturbs me.

Wow. That was unexpected (by me, at least). There are a bunch of 'lost films' that probably aren't lost, but Metropolis is so well known that it would be hard not to notice you had 25 extra minutes of it. Weird. :p

I missed this news when it came out a couple of weeks ago: a complete print of Fritz Lang's silent sci-fi masterpiece Metropolis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017136/) has been found in Buenos Aires. This is amazing news for cinema nerds -- the original, "director's cut" of Metropolis was cut down about 25% a few months after it came out in 1927, and the vast majority of the cut footage has remained missing until now. (Many moviegoers who saw the film in its wide release in 1928 complained that the film didn't make any sense -- not surprising, given how much was cut! I actually have a reproduction of a poster from the 1928 release proclaiming the film to be "EXOTIC, EROTIC, ERRATIC" -- apparently the distributor tried to make the plot weakness into a selling point.)

Links: Film critic Roger Ebert reports (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080804/COMMENTARY/488633502) the find
Film.com enthuses (http://www.film.com/dvds/story/fritz-langs-lost-metropolis-rediscovered/21694018)
(Yes, I realize these were from weeks ago, I missed the story when it broke.)

Many of you may not have seen Metropolis, but it's worth a look if you're at all interested in movie history. Yes, it's a silent movie, and modern audiences often find the expressionistic style to be distracting as they're not used to it, but it was a pioneering film in terms of scale and effects, and many movies (especially Sci-Fi movies) have been heavily influenced by it. Also, it's not a hard movie to get into: Sexy Evil Lady Robot! Class Warfare! True Love! Ingmar Bergman it ain't.

So, this news got me thinking about other missing masterpieces, and how we may be discarding media now that future generations will say "How could they not have kept this?" The movie was kind of a flop when it came out, and movies weren't considered High Art in 1927, so nobody thought of archiving a print until too late. Sure, we're pretty good about preserving books now, and some movies, but tons of early TV shows and videogames are lost or nearly lost.

What do y'all think? Anything strike you as a present or future Missing Masterpiece? Does our ever-expanding internet mean that everything will be preserved, or do you think valuable stuff might be lost even if the "O RLY?" Owl survives?

YES!!! Can't wait for the Complete and Restored Metropolis to be released!

Wow. That was unexpected (by me, at least). There are a bunch of 'lost films' that probably aren't lost, but Metropolis is so well known that it would be hard not to notice you had 25 extra minutes of it. Weird. :p

From what I understand it's not a very good print, so nobody who would recognize the missing bits bothered to look at it until a cinema-club manager screened it and said "hey, this is longer than I expected". Funny to think about what may be tucked away in someone's attic somewhere...

Funny to think about what may be tucked away in someone's attic somewhere...

I got this guy named Jimmy who keeps saying he founded the Teamsters...

Awesome!

Though I agree with CToaN that I'm already dreading the DVD sales; my version will have to be updated.

(Oh, and Roger Ebert is a ****.)

I'd love to see 'Gangs of New York" original version. It's 20 minutes longer and without the god-awful narration.

Has the original version of "Gangs of New York" not been released as a special edition DVD, then?

afaik, nope. Harvey Weinstein and Scorsese had a major difference of opinion. It was so bad that Weinstein had the changes made despite (indeed to SPITE) Scorsese. Harvey then had all the original copies destroyed so Scorsese couldn't release a Director's cut later. Which means the fight must have been a major one, for a studio exec like Weinstein to forgo the chance to make more $ later with the usual extended director cut version.
Scorsese though did manage to keep a copy apparently and gave it to a friend for safe-keeping. Fingers crossed he's able to put it out one day.

Huh. It looks like Harvey Weinstein doesn't have the most pleasant personality.

He's a movie studio exec. What do you expect?
His personality is distilled from pure T-Rex genes.

(Many moviegoers who saw the film in its wide release in 1928 complained that the film didn't make any sense -- not surprising, given how much was cut! I actually have a reproduction of a poster from the 1928 release proclaiming the film to be "EXOTIC, EROTIC, ERRATIC" -- apparently the distributor tried to make the plot weakness into a selling point.)


Let me get this straight, you want me to watch an 80 year old movie with a weak plot that didnt even get good reviews at the time?

I was actually about to buy this on DVD, think I will wait a little longer now. Hopefully the missing first Golem film will turn up soon as well.

Let me get this straight, you want me to watch an 80 year old movie with a weak plot that didnt even get good reviews at the time?
Citizen Cane didn't open to good reviews initially, either. Many great works are better regarded by history than they were in their time.

Huh. It looks like Harvey Weinstein doesn't have the most pleasant personality.

Stories of him flipping out on people are legendary.

Citizen Cane didn't open to good reviews initially, either. Many great works are better regarded by history than they were in their time.
And many bad works become inexplicably popular as they age and attain status as a "classic." Even Fritz Lang is on record as disliking Metropolis.
A good test is to watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlZDNf_12sk&feature=related). If you find yourself asking questions like, "What possible purpose do all those machines serve, other than to randomly explode and kill everyone?" or "What happened to that guys pants, and why is he still wearing them? Is he a some sort of man-child? Does his mommy dress him?" then you probably won't like Metropolis.

Huh. It looks like Harvey Weinstein doesn't have the most pleasant personality.

He insists that he's become a much nicer person since he stopped eating refined sugar. I'm not kidding -- while Scorsese has had much more well-publicized problems with a more expensive white powder, Harvey's outbursts apparently stem from his giant bag of M&Ms.

That and the fact that he's an unrepentant asshole. But "M&Ms!" is a funnier explanation.

And many bad works become inexplicably popular as they age and attain status as a "classic." Even Fritz Lang is on record as disliking Metropolis.

To be fair, Fritz Lang was at that point rather interested in shoring up his anti-Nazi credentials, and he dissed not only Metropolis but other films that he'd made with his Nazi ex-wife, such as the Niebelungen movies.

I missed this news when it came out a couple of weeks ago: a complete print of Fritz Lang's silent sci-fi masterpiece Metropolis (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0017136/) has been found in Buenos Aires.
Yes!

By the way, my first thought was: "Metropolis? No, that would be too good..."
And here it is.


Many of you may not have seen Metropolis, but it's worth a look if you're at all interested in movie history.
Not just history. It's a great movie on its own. It has been an outstanding one in its day as well, not just run-off-the-mill.

BTW, it's also one of the most expensive movies in the history, and IIRC the most expensive in its days.


If you find yourself asking questions like, "What possible purpose do all those machines serve, other than to randomly explode and kill everyone?" [...] then you probably won't like Metropolis.
Well, yes. If you are thinking about the machines rather than people, you probably won't like it.
BTW the machine looks quite like a steam [possibly other] engine, with manually operated valves, powering, likely, an electric generator for the city's power grid.

He insists that he's become a much nicer person since he stopped eating refined sugar. I'm not kidding -- while Scorsese has had much more well-publicized problems with a more expensive white powder, Harvey's outbursts apparently stem from his giant bag of M&Ms.
laundry detergent?
That would explain his constant dishevelled look...

Well, yes. If you are thinking about the machines rather than people, you probably won't like it.
BTW the machine looks quite like a steam [possibly other] engine, with manually operated valves, powering, likely, an electric generator for the city's power grid.
The people are as much parts of the machines as anything else underground, or at least that's the conclusion I derived from their clockwork strides and repetitive motions.
And steam power, even back in the 1920's, wasn't that hazardous nor did it involve at that pointlessly expended human labor.

The people are as much parts of the machines as anything else underground, or at least that's the conclusion I derived from their clockwork strides and repetitive motions.
And steam power, even back in the 1920's, wasn't that hazardous nor did it involve at that pointlessly expended human labor.
I think that was the major point he was trying to make: that mechanisation would turn us into little more than cogs in the machine.
Maybe it involved so much human labour as a way to control them. Giving them all pointless duties to perform gave them less time to think about overthrowing the status quo.

I think that was the major point he was trying to make: that mechanisation would turn us into little more than cogs in the machine.
Then he could have showed them actually, you know, doing something that made sense. Instead they work at an explosive death factory and periodically fall down.
Maybe it involved so much human labour as a way to control them. Giving them all pointless duties to perform gave them less time to think about overthrowing the status quo.
The fact that a robot (which can, through some miracle, function without a small army of serfs twiddling nobs attached to her back) is invented to do those tasks implies there is some value in performing them.

At a stab, I'd say it was symbolic.

Then he could have showed them actually, you know, doing something that made sense. Instead they work at an explosive death factory and periodically fall down.
Well, he could depict full-floor open-plan back offices, full of aerospace engineers, drawing an airliner, tediously, frame by frame, stringer by stringer, river by rivet (yes, that's how they do it). Or farms full of code monkeys, trapped in gray cubicles, typing and typing mindless interface features for Kleineweisch Fenster.

But would it pass the message through as quickly and effectively?



I think that was the major point he was trying to make: that mechanisation would turn us into little more than cogs in the machine.
I don't think that's quite it. First, the mechanization eventually creates a robot which could replace the workers, second, towards the end he also shows Luddism as pointless and self-destructive. IMHO, it's more about social separation and fascism, technology serving only as a further divider between the classes.
Remember, it was a time of strong political discontent, although it's hard to say that the film is about its times.

Then he could have showed them actually, you know, doing something that made sense. Instead they work at an explosive death factory and periodically fall down.

The fact that a robot (which can, through some miracle, function without a small army of serfs twiddling nobs attached to her back) is invented to do those tasks implies there is some value in performing them.
i assumed the machines required constant adjustment to function properly and that was both why they workers were constantly engaging in strenuous and dangerous dial turning and why the whole thing turned into a death trap when they stopped. the exact nature of what it is they are doing is purposefully vague since the machines are supposed to be futuristic and stylized.

its strange i never had any trouble with suspension of disbelief in this movie, its 50s hollywood musicals that leave me both confused and angry and asking why thecharacters are doing what they are doing and how anyone finds them entertaining.