Wells And Metropolis
Apr. 18th, 2011 01:28 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
poliphiloIn my last post I fleetingly referred to H.G. Wells's opinion of Metropolis. Since then ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
sovay has very kindly pointed me to the actual review. It's a hatchet job.
I haven't seen Metropolis in about 40 years, but it's one of those films that stay with you. I agree with Wells. Metropolis is a damn silly film- with its stupid plot and mash-up of elements plagiarised from Capek, Griffith, Mary Shelley and Wells himself- but it's silly the way that dreams are silly- and movies are allowed to be more like dreams than novels are; it matters less that they should make sense or have a coherent argument. The images- if they're strong enough- by-pass logic. Yes, every single point Wells makes is pretty much on the money- but there's no way- once you've seen them- you get to scrub those images from your brain.
sovay has very kindly pointed me to the actual review. It's a hatchet job.I haven't seen Metropolis in about 40 years, but it's one of those films that stay with you. I agree with Wells. Metropolis is a damn silly film- with its stupid plot and mash-up of elements plagiarised from Capek, Griffith, Mary Shelley and Wells himself- but it's silly the way that dreams are silly- and movies are allowed to be more like dreams than novels are; it matters less that they should make sense or have a coherent argument. The images- if they're strong enough- by-pass logic. Yes, every single point Wells makes is pretty much on the money- but there's no way- once you've seen them- you get to scrub those images from your brain.
