Essay: Comparing George Orwell's '1984' and Fritz Lang's 'Metropolis'

In a modernist world that questions personal freedoms in the plight of security and productivity, we must take heed from historical messages that have transcended time. This much is so in the texts of “1984” by George Orwell and Metropolis (1927) by Fritz Lang. Both these texts question the oppression and degradation of humanity that occurs when personal liberties are not taken into consideration in the course of development and security. Both belonging to dystopian fiction, they each are presented a different way by their respective composers, reflective of the different perspectives that are generated by different contextual influences.

Control over individuals occurs when they are oppressed. This is present in Lang’s Metropolis through a physical oppression of the workers. This is reflective of the previous years leading up to the film where the German people had experienced a period of complete economic and political turmoil, which had led to a discord between the workers and the owners of capital, with the threat of a communist uprising. This influenced Lang’s perspective of physical oppression and its impacts on humanity. This is seen in Metropolis with the words “Muloch” accompanying the people being sacrificed into the mouth of the machine. The use of the metaphor highlights the insignificance of their existence that has occurred through this physical oppression. This is emphasised by Lang’s use of the movements of the workers in the machine, which seem robotic and unnatural. The workers move quickly and rigidly which suggests an idea of mechanisation, further degrading their inherent human characteristics. The movements have also been sped up highlighting the maximisation of productivity of labour.  Lang suggests that the plight for production maximisation has caused a physical oppression where humans have been forced to become robots or machines, with their inherent human behaviours becoming suppressed in the process.

Control and oppression occur when knowledge is restricted. In 1984, this idea of physiological oppression is present rather than the physical oppression of Metropolis. This is due to the darker context when the book was written. Orwell’s perspective of the operation of totalitarian regimes was influenced by the growth of states such as USSR, and even the USA, where information would be filtered through state media or would be restricted from the masses. In 1984, Orwell shows this perspective of control through language and information through the use of a new contractionary language known as “newspeak” whereby words are shortened for the purpose that “the associations called up by a word like Minitrue are fewer and more controllable that those called up by the ministry of truth.” Orwell suggests that by shortening words, the original meanings with their own connotations are removed, leading to all original associations with the word becoming blurred. This removal of association, a fundamental structure of the English language, means that there is no possibility to question or incite thought, allowing for easier control of the people. This is emphasised by the party slogan
“WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGHT”. Orwell’s use of paradoxical irony, removes the original connotations of the negative words of war, slavery and ignorance by blurring it through juxtaposition with the positive connotations of peace, freedom and strength. This contradiction is used to further restrict knowledge, where all motives of the party are associated positively regardless of their original associations. This restriction of awareness or knowledge allows the party to feed the people with information that is filtered and provided with a purpose where the questioning of rulings and decisions cannot occur as the people are not given any more information to question.

Progression through change and development allows for the bettering of society. During the political and economic instability of the newly formed Weimar Republic, many people in Germany believed in a change of governance and of societal structures. This saw the rise of National Socialism that appealed to the Germans sense of brotherhood, offering hope of a united Germany and did not contain all the fears of communism or pure capitalism. In Lang’s Metropolis, this change is seen through the contrast of the beginning and the ending of the film. At the beginning of the film, where the workers are attending their shifts, they’re walking in herds almost like sheep or cattle. This is a degradation of their human characteristics and reflects the physical oppression that has been cast on them, which is highlighted by their heads bowing down, symbolising submission. At the end of the movie, the workers are marching with their heads held high, which symbolises pride, and walking up the stairs in a triangular shape, which symbolises purpose and strength as well as development. They march towards an arch, which is a biblical allusion to the rainbow that followed the flood, suggesting peace and prosperity of the future. Lang also uses the quote “The mediator between the head and the hands must be the heart”, which has been repeated from the beginning of the film to emphasise the need to curb extremism on both ends, subsequently suggesting a change has occurred.

This is contrasted in 1984. Orwell, influenced by the atrocities of WWII, that were no different to the First World War - only more heinous in nature and on a larger scale – believed that in order for a peaceful and prosperous future, we must change the way we behave.  This perspective is reflective in “1984” through comparison of the beginning of the book with its end. At the beginning, Winston is shown to have a perspective of acceptance of his circumstances “You had to live – did live , from habit that became instinct – in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinised.” Through normalising what would normally be considered a breach of privacy, Orwell suggests that the human condition of survival, through the acceptance of circumstance of Winston’s position, may lead to a removal of personal and individual freedoms.  This idea is echoed at the end of the book in the appendix where Orwell suggests through the quoting of the Declaration of Independence that change must occur for the betterment of society “We hold these truths to be self-evident…the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it and to institute new Government”. The appendix, written in past tense, in conjunction with the quotation of the Declaration, is used by Orwell to suggest that if change does occur, society itself will be able to maintain its “unalienable rights” of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. Orwell emphasises the positive outcomes for change of societal and political structures in order for positive progress.

What both composers show is how the lack of liberties and personal freedoms and the exploit of them, harms the overall functioning of society. Lang show’s this through a physical oppression, reflective of the economic depression of his time and the ever growing presence of machinery and industrialisation. Orwell shows something similar but reflective of his much more technologically advanced context with psychological oppression. This shows how regardless of context, if personal liberties are denied and ignored, this ultimately can bring the downfall of humanity.

If you have a burning question, or would like to featured in some way in the "Ask them from me" segment, email me at: cc3493@gmail.com. If you do not want to be featured in the "Ask them from me" featured post, please let me know in the email :)

Visit Particular Interest for more content like this!

Previous Essay All Essays Next Essay