We Need Each Other: A Close Reading of Metropolis

This essay analyzes a late sequence in the original release of Fritz Lang’s Metropolis. A Marxist analysis of this sequence reveals a surprising codependency between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, represented by Johann Fredersen and the workers respectively. Marx himself may not agree with this portrayal, but Althusser’s ideas concerning the lasting power and reproductive needs of a capitalist system bring the interclass relationships in Metropolis into focus. 

This point in Metropolis finds us in the midst of the workers’ revolution. While the workers have been destroying the machines, Maria, Freder Fredersen, and one of Freder’s petit bourgeois allies have been saving their children. The sequence opens with a long shot of the children running up and embracing their three saviors. The main purpose of this shot is to show the compassion of Freder and Maria, as Lang is preparing Freder to assume the mantle of the mediator in a few short minutes. However, this scene does something else important: after the shot ends, a dialogue intertitle quotes Freder telling Maria to get the children to safety while he notifies the workers that they are alright. This delegation of roles emphasizes the fact that Freder and Maria are a team—a member of the bourgeoisie and a member of the working class cooperating to accomplish a goal that benefits everyone (the revolution will be pacified), but especially the underprivileged proletariat (their mechanism of reproduction will be saved). 

Evidence for these ideas can be found in the mise-en-scène. This sequence begins with the actors moving forward to occupy more of the visual space as the children rush towards them, until about 85% of the screen is filled with protagonists hugging children. The resulting sense of intimacy and closeness with children paints them in a very flattering light evocative of Mother Mary and Jesus, who are commonly portrayed with children. Additionally, the emphasis on Freder and Maria’s closeness with each other (note how Freder’s bourgeois ally is almost cut out of the shot as Freder and Maria move forward) further celebrates their unification of purpose. Sound helps here, too; the orchestral score for this segment of the sequence is gentle and calm. 

The remainder of this sequence focuses on the foreman—who himself is somewhere between the petite bourgeoisie and the proletariat—engaging in a dialogue with the workers. Once again, Lang leans on mise-en-scène, this time to create dramatic effect. When the foreman first gets up, there is a lot of visual space, and both the destroyed machines and celebrating workers fit easily into the shot. But as the foreman puts more and more effort into getting their attention, the arrangement of actors tightens up. By the time that the workers have assembled around the foreman, they fill the screen. The audience may then take notice of the editing and cinematography; the shot-reverse shot pattern typical of conversation scenes has begun between the foreman and the workers. These elements parallel the focusing of the workers’ attention. The destruction (and revolution) have been pushed, visually and literally, from their minds as they focus on what the foreman has to say: “Where are your children?” 

The workers’ reaction to this is panic followed by despair. Not only do the workers care about their children as family, but a deeper meaning associated with Marxist thought can be attached here. In his essay, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” Louis Althusser states that “every social formation must reproduce the conditions of its production at the same time as it produces, and in order to be able to produce. It must therefore reproduce…the existing relations of production” (86). In other words, the workforce is itself a living entity with a need for reproduction—and the workers whom the foreman is addressing realize that their revolution, their attempt to destroy the influence of the bourgeoisie, has just led to the destruction of these means. Both their habitat and their offspring have now been eliminated as a direct result of their actions. The acting at this point is appropriately dramatic.

In fact, the workforce’s means of reproduction has not been destroyed. Instead, it was saved by the combined efforts of members of the proletariat and bourgeoisie (as discussed in the analysis of the scene with the children). It is in this juxtaposition of the two parts of the sequence that the codependency between these two groups is revealed. If not for the assistance of two members of the bourgeoisie, the workforce would have been doomed, its future destroyed. Meanwhile, the very fact that the bourgeoisie helped save the workforce acts as an acknowledgement of its dependency on the proletariat. Additionally, previous sequences more clearly illustrate Freder’s acquired appreciation for the working class. 

However, this codependency is itself only a part of the larger message of Metropolis. In a nutshell, this film is an exploration of extremes, from machines reminiscent of the old gods to revolutions that can destroy cities in just one day. But in a complication of traditional Marxist thought, both a bourgeois extreme and a proletariat extreme are portrayed as undesirable. Instead, the main message Lang wants to get across is the necessity of mediation, the avoidance of all extremes. The importance of the heart in mediating between the brain and the muscle is explicitly stated, and the bridging of divides is shown to be necessary for everyone’s survival. This scene is a clear contributor to this message; it captures the moment when cooperation between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat makes a real difference. The salvation of the children sets the stage for the last scene, when the bourgeoisie and proletariat will, due to their new understanding of their codependence, shake hands—thereby ushering in the potential for a true utopia, founded on the virtues of cooperation and mediation, to exist at last.

——— 

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Towards an Investigation.” In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, 85–126. Translated by Ben Brewster. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2001. 

Lang, Fritz, dir. Metropolis. 1927; Bridgeport, CT: Synergy Entertainment, 2007. DVD.

——— 

I wrote this piece in FILM 272: Critical Writing in Multimedia Contexts @ UW-Whitewater. It first appeared in the 2020 issue of the film studies journal Reading Film.