(note: I am writing this in English since it is related to this post. This post is only about his title. There were a lot more things to say about this movie.)
I am not sure about the doubts of the fact that most people do not talk about Metropolis as a dystopia like they talk about “1984″, “Brave New World” or the others referred in the post. This could be due to several reasons in my opinion.
Maybe most people did not have seen Metropolis. Maybe Metropolis hadn’t a movement. I have to explain this. During my lifetime I saw several movements, the “Kafka movement” - I went to sleep one day and in the next day when I woke up everybody loved Kafka; the Russians movement, etc. The “1984″ and “The Brave New World” were talked in this way too.
[I had to check my definition of dystopia because I was not understanding the real question here, so if you go to the root of the word you see that a dystopia is an abnormal place or a place where something abnormal occurs. But most of the definitions that I found add this thing of fiction to the word. I had to say this before return to my opinion]
But if we suppose that this kind of hypothesis is not correct and we assume that people saw Metropolis - because you have to see it - we could think in another reason: maybe people do not recognize the frame of Metropolis as abnormal. And this is really sad.
I am using “1984″ and “The Brave New World” for comparison because I know them. I do not know the others mentioned in the post.
In the case of “1984″, you have this Big Brother issue, new habits and you have a new language, so it is easy to people to recognized it as abnormal, and this story has another point favoring this: it deals with people’s fears.
In the case of “Brave New World” you have moments of totally reverse of values (the fact that a girl should like several boys, the words mother and father being obscene, people are made according to the necessity of work) that are easily recognizable by people as abnormal.
Let’s see what we have in Metropolis. I am going to start with the thing that people could find more different or abnormal and it could be the robot that act like a person. Although, with this things going on about machines doing things that we never thought as possible, I am not so sure if people consider this as real abnormal thing, now. [Wow, so many 'things' in this paragraph! :-)]
But I see the robot as a tool that is introduced to make the development of the problem, that must be solved in the narrative, faster. I do not see Metropolis with a focus on the robot, I see it in a wider angle.
So, for me the frame of Metropolis is a society that is supported by slaves. And for me this is abnormal.
I had a teacher, during my degree, that used to say that because people see abnormal things so many times, they start to consider them normal. She use to give the movie’s example. So, we have a movie and a hero, the good guy, and this guy kills people (Did you noticed the paradox? The hero, the good guy, kills people). Of course that you can say “but he kills people for good reasons”. I do not think there is a good reason to kill a human being.
Maybe, because we have in our history, societies very similar, in structure, with that one, people just do not find it so abnormal. But for me it still is. So, of course, that for me, Metropolis is a dystopia.
I had something more to say, but I can not remember now, I didn’t slept today again, my English is getting worst and I just hope that this text makes some sense.
BTW, Metropolis is the best silent movie I ever saw, too. Because of the integration of the form and the content. But it is not the most beautiful one. That one belongs to Murnau 
…
Entries (RSS)
hey, i was just asking. it was a dumb none-of-my-business question, anyway.
oh, I do not think it was dumb question at all
I suppose that if I landed in this house and see that people here are Portuguese, but they write in English and in Portuguese, I would be surprised too. I was thinking about this and, in fact, what concerns me I do not even have a rule for this. It would be more understandable if I wrote in English for technology, for instance, and in Portuguese for other subjects, but it is not the case. I change languages in an aleatory strange kind of way 
And of course it is your business, every time a person became a reader of a text, things concerning that text became his/her business.
I really like to see readers as co-authors of a text
Today I’ll probably go out to see a popcorn movie because last night I stayed home and watched a very disturbing movie I’ll talk about in a post one of these days. But about the popcorn movie… I’ll probably go see the latest 007 movie where the Hero kills allot of people.
Maybe that is true, and maybe that is not true. Last week I saw a re-run of one of the older Bond movies when Bond drives a Tank in the middle of Saint Petersburg (Leningrad). In that scene and the ones before he kills many Russian soldiers.
But those where note thugs, or mercenary. Those where normal soldiers that where just doing they’re job, protecting what mother Nation told them was correct.
There are no hero’s today……
Maybe they’ll make a movie about it… “The last hero”
Hmm, my definition goes beyond that. My concept of dystopia is “a [fictional?] representation of a world or society that is the antithesis of an utopia”. And, well, we can’t really say that “a normal place” is the same as “an utopic place” can we?
Well, if you liked those two, I really have to recommend you “We”, from Zamiatine. It’s less known, but it is my favourite.
That, added to the fact that those slaves are the general population, they don’t understand that they’re slaves, and they have a role in a society that “works” and is “stable”, even if that means that its citizens are no longer “human” (psychologicly-wide), is what make me think on Metropolis as a dystopia. There aren’t that much differences between those “slaves” and those living under the eye of the Big Brother, or those geneticly-changed beings that are created to fulfill a certain purpose, right?