An Architectural Standpoint of Metropolis

In this week History of Architecture class, we continued our study on 'from Bauhaus to Our House' along with watching the first part of Metropolis. This silent film by Fritz Lang conveys an allegory between man and machine. One interesting way to approach this movie is through analyzing it in an architectural perspective. From here on, i will be looking into different scenes and attempting to analyze its space based on mainly my own interpretation and my previous knowledge of architectural history.

Metropolis starts off with images of machine-like structure operating. Engines and steam engines, along with a clock is portrayed repetitively. One of my first reaction to these images reminded me of factories and mass production. From then, it takes us into a subway-like tunnel where we see workers changing shifts. (1) Obviously, the film is representing the industrial age. Workers in the film are organized and walking like they are in jail. They all wear the same outfits, very non bourgeois, have similar haircuts, and are not very happy with what they are doing :( (2) This could be related to the theme of an 'average man' where things would be design for one universal man. For example, one might design a free-size shirt that would fit everyone rather than having design xs, s, m ,l and xl sizes. (3) The next shot shows the worker's house which is still underground. All the houses are the same, having only the necessary windows and doors. No decoration or any type of ornamentation is seen on the building facade at all. (4) While the workers are changing shifts, the shot is redirected to ground level, where a complex called "Club of the Sons" is holding a running race. With this, we see that they are wealthy and educated. The walls in the background shot is massive and unrealistically portrayed. On top are statues of humans in motion which can relate back to Greek statues. Next to the oversize wall is a coliseum-like building where it has influences mainly from Greece Architectural Style. Buildings such as the Parthenon and this complex, for me, represents wealth, order, and power. The two shots of the worker's housing and the complex contrasts dramatically. In my opinion, Lang place the two scenarios together to differentiate between classes. The bourgeois and the non bourgeois.

The next scene cuts of to introduce the main character, Freder in the 'Eternal Garden' (5). His father owned the city and he lives in his own little bubble where he has never worked a day in his life. The garden is very organic, filled with trees and exotic looking plants. Although no buildings were shown, one can see that people who are allowed in are only the wealthy. While Freder is enjoying his party time, he is confronted with an anonymous girl whom he lusts over. She appeared from these two tall doors which contradicts with the garden completely. (6) The mysterious girl is then pulled back into the room and Freder barges in to find her. (7) It horrified him to see the factory that his father has built underground. In the factory, images of scary looking machines and workers distressing is shown (8) (9). Then one worker failed to handle the machine and it exploded. Freder then saw what looked like a gateway to hell. A huge staircase was erected up to a aztec looking opening. (11). The high-rise staircase makes the entrance very intimidating and the two steam engines makes the scene even more dramatic. The terrified Freder then took off to report what he saw to his father, Jon Fredersen. (12) The scene now changes to the outer world, where we see the top part of metropolis. Under all the factories and machines, there lies a 'modern' world on top. High rise buildings is seen everywhere along with mass produced cars and airplanes. (13). And in the middle of the city lies Jon Fredersen's building, the new Tower of Babel (14). Freder then intruded his father's work to inform him of the explosion inside the factory. His father was very calm, strict, and up tight. While he was listening to his son's story, he looked out towards his glass window and from then we see part of Lang's vision of the modern world. (15). After firing his assistant, Jon Fredersen ordered a spy to tail his son. He then also sets off to a small, mysterious looking house in the middle of the city. (16). Inside, Rotwang the scientist was creating a robot. (17) His house was filled with unique designs such as a spiraling staircase and weird looking telescopes (18)

The scene cuts back to Freder, where he traded places with a worker and worked a 10 hour shift. He was in charge of the time and was struggling to keep the machine working properly. (19) After the shift ended, the workers all followed a map deep underground into the catacomb where he meets the mysterious lady he was searching. The underground secretive room appears as a cave. (20) The mysterious woman was dressed in all white, symbolizing purity, while standing on a stage with crosses in the background. It could have been a graveyard.

We stopped around this part of the movie so i am going to finish my analysis here. In summary, what i found to be themes in this movie is the relationship between man and machine. How Rotwang decided to create a robot to be human like and how Jon Fredersen controls his human workers like machines. Also the there is a very strong theme of class between the bourgeois and the non bourgeois as well.

Welcome to The Modern Age

based on readings from "From Bauhaus To Our House" by Tom Wolfe

After World War I was over, Europeans wanted a new start on things. They talk about "starting from zero" and recreating the world. Walter Gropius, or Silver Prince, founded the Bauhaus School which young architects and artist came to study about "starting from zero."

The Bauhaus was formed having two goals in mind. One being to create for the workers and the other to reject all things bourgeois. But what really defines what is bourgeois and non bourgeois?

The word, bourgeois, means of or characteristic of the middle class, typically with reference to its perceived materialistic values or conventional attitudes. In my opinion, what Gropius along with the other architects at that time thought was bourgeois was just about anything that was conventional. Basically, anything that had cornices and high pitched-roof. There were no set-in-stone rules that tell you what is bourgeois and non bourgeois. I think that the word 'bourgeois' had been so refined that it had become too vague.

The newly developed movement was at first defined by the latest theory of what was non bourgeois. New materials were introduced, blending in concrete, steel, wood, glass, and stucco. White, beige, gray, and black were their patriotic colors.

The theories they manifested when constructed, made the buildings nonfunctional even though their aim was to build everything functional. Ornaments and decorations outside of buildings which does not serve any functions were a no- no.

One of the avant-garde for this movement, which became known as the International Style, was Le Corbusier. He strongly believed that this was the coming of the machine age. He designed and built Villa Savoye which defined the new movement. The Villa Savoye followed Le Corbusier's five points which includes:

1. Use of pilotis to raise the buildings above ground and free the space under the building.

2. Free the plan: Using a frame construction to free the plan from load-bearing walls to flow according to function and aesthetics.

3. Free the facade that can become a void, a large window or a thin membrane.

4. Use of horizontal strip windows that let in the most light.

5. The roof garden: switching from pitched roof to a flat roof and using the space as a garden terrace and bringing the landscape into the house.

A topic that could be raised is if Le Corbusier's designs were functional or not. Although his aim, similar to all the rest of Bauhaus, was to design for the workers; it resulted with the workers complaining because it was too machine-like. The workers tried to make the place more comfortable and cozy. And what did Le Corbusier had to say about this? He says that "they had to be reeducated to comprehend the beauty of 'the Radiant City' of the future" (Wolfe 32). In other words, they were too "intellectually undeveloped" to understand. Why would they want to design for the workers if they didn't ask what the workers wanted? Shouldn't the worker's need be one of the most important factor to take into consideration?

The principle of "expressed structure" was also another newly formed theory. The idea was basically to design so that the inner structure will be expressed on the outside of the building. Schroeder House, design by Gerrit Rietveld, was a clear example of this principle. The building's exterior symbolizes the grid and its geometric progression of its plan.

Citation:

Walter Gropius. Photograph. Born Today. Web. .

Wolfe, Tom. From Bauhaus to Our House. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux, 1981. Print.