1. G ERMAN E XPRESSIONISM 3: M ETROPOLIS Lecture 14

2. W HAT ARE THE STYLISTIC FEATURES OF EXPRESSIONIST FILM VS. IMPRESSIONIST FILM ? Impressionism 1.Mise-en-scene/pro-filmic: naturalistic Location/outdoor shooting 2. *Innovates in the area of camerawork (i.e. the enframed image): Superimposition Distortions Masks Filters Soft focus Mobile camera Variety of angles and heights 3.Transforms image of nature using photographic means: defamiliarizes nature: photogénie 4.*Innovates in the area of editing Continuity based on graphic, rhythmic, associative, connotative relations between shots Expressionism 1.*Innovates in the area of mise-en- scene (i.e. the pro-filmic) Sets: artificial not natural Costumes Props Acting lighting 2.Enframed image/camerawork Unobtrusive Stationary camera Eye-level Straight-on angle 3.Replaces the image of nature with art: substitutes for nature 4.Editing Unobtrusive Continuity o Shot/reverse shot o Cross-cutting

3. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : B UILT SETS From The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari From Metropolis

4. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : G RAPHIC Q UALITIES OF THE S HOT / S ETS AS ACTORS

5. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : G RAPHIC Q UALITIES OF THE S HOT / D E - EMPHASIS ON THE H UMAN F IGURE

6. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : G RAPHIC Q UALITIES OF THE S HOT

7. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : G RAPHIC Q UALITIES OF THE S HOT / D E - EMPHASIS ON THE H UMAN F IGURE

8. B IRTH OF A N ATION

9. T HE C ROWD

10. M ETROPOLIS

11. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : G RAPHIC Q UALITIES OF THE S HOT

12. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : D ISTORTION AND E XAGGERATION

13. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : JUXTAPOSITION OF SIMILAR SHAPES

14. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : C OSTUMES

15. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : A CTING S LOW AND EXAGGERATED

16. E XPRESSIONIST S TYLISTICS : L IGHTING

17. T HE L ESSON OF F ORM ( STYLE ) AND C ONTENT ( STORY ) IN M ETROPOLIS Two kinds of objections – Stupid story, amazing style Ex: the Young Buñuel in 1927: “Those who consider the cinema as a discreet teller of tales will suffer a profound disillusion with Metropolis. What it tells us is trivial, pretentious, pedantic, hackneyed romanticism. But if we put before the story the plastic-photogenic basis of the film, then Metropolis will come up to any standards, will overwhelm us as the most marvellous picture book imaginable.” Ex: reviewer: “Dear Mr. Lang, don’t always think in terms of individual images! Your problem is that the idea counts as nothing for you…. [M]any of your images are very beautiful…but shouldn’t they also have meaning and sense?” – Inconsistent story and style Ex: Kracauer in 1947: “It makes sense that, on their way to and from the machines, the workers form ornamental groups; but it is nonsensical to force them into such groups while they are listening to a comforting speech from the girl Maria during their leisure time. In his exclusive concern with ornamentation, Lang goes so far as to compose decorative patterns from the masses who are desperately trying to escape the inundation of the lower city.”

20. T HE A SYLUM Inside the framing-storyOutside the framing-story

21. K RACAUER : “C INEMATICALLY AN INCOMPARABLE ACHIEVEMENT, THIS INUNDATION SEQUENCE IS HUMANLY A SHOCKING FAILURE.”

22. Final shots of Metropolis

23. Lang on Joseph Goebbels, Nazi propaganda minister: According to Lang (1941), “…he [Goebbels] told me that, many years before, he and the Fuhrer had seen my picture Metropolis in a small town, and Hitler had said at that time that he wanted me to make the Nazi pictures.”

24. T HE M ASS O RNAMENT IN L ENI R IEFENSTAHL ’ S 1934 P ROPAGANDA DOCUMENTARY, T RIUMPH OF THE W ILL.