What do you think?
Rate this book
BFI Film Classics
Metropolis
This volume explores the cultural phenomenon of Metropolis , its different versions, its changing meanings, and its role as a database of the twentieth century.
96 pages, Paperback
First published November 26, 2000
9 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
About the author
Thomas Elsaesser
63 books22 followersThomas Elsaesser was a German film historian and professor of Film and Television Studies at the University of Amsterdam.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
October 8, 2023
Informative and relevantly so but deals more with the reception and production (/post-production) of the film than its analysis. I preferred the way Joan Mellen treated Seven Samurai (same BFI classics) a book which I am still to finish.
#4 of sxc-library-100-books-challenge
#4 of sxc-library-100-books-challenge
August 14, 2016
Concise but informative overview of Fritz Lang's epic, simultaneously awesome and ridiculous, science-fiction/fairy tale spectacle/melodrama and its iconic images: its origins (both cultural and financial), its poor initial reception (outrageously expensive, it flopped!), and its varying reinterpretations, throughout the decades (a communist stoker of class warfare, a fascist celebration of manipulation of the masses, a postmodern celebration of the city and hybrid humans).
A good deal of intriguing history here, and, lazily, I really like the stimulating high-level overviews of battling critical stances Elsaesser provides here (as opposed to going cross-eyed trying to read the critical sources themselves). However, I wish he'd gone into a bit more detail about the production itself. Also, his new 2012 foreword (the book was originally published in 2000 by the British Film Institute) covers the 2010 restoration which restores many key scenes thanks to the finding in a Buenos Aires archive of the previously lost long version of the film as it was first shown, before many edits. And while this foreword's a good update, I wish Elsaesser went into as much detail as what this new restored version provides to the Metropolis legacy as he did for Moroder's 80's appropriation/synth-pop-fication version of the film in the main book. Still, recommended to film history buffs and any Lang fans.
A good deal of intriguing history here, and, lazily, I really like the stimulating high-level overviews of battling critical stances Elsaesser provides here (as opposed to going cross-eyed trying to read the critical sources themselves). However, I wish he'd gone into a bit more detail about the production itself. Also, his new 2012 foreword (the book was originally published in 2000 by the British Film Institute) covers the 2010 restoration which restores many key scenes thanks to the finding in a Buenos Aires archive of the previously lost long version of the film as it was first shown, before many edits. And while this foreword's a good update, I wish Elsaesser went into as much detail as what this new restored version provides to the Metropolis legacy as he did for Moroder's 80's appropriation/synth-pop-fication version of the film in the main book. Still, recommended to film history buffs and any Lang fans.
February 4, 2015
A volume in the British Film Institute's Classics series, this short book deals with Fritz Lang's 1926 silent film Metropolis. There is some discussion of the origins of the film, and an interesting summary of some of the sources of the plot and the imagery. Most of the book discusses the "reception history" of this controversial film, from contemporary reviews to the cult-film remake by Morodor.
Generally, most critics were impressed by the technical aspects of the film, but considered the story to be silly; the Communists considered it proto-Nazi and the Nazi's as Communist propaganda. (Personally, I think it was most similar ideologically to H.G. Well's The Time Machine, in its "Fabian" argument that the capitalists should find a mediator with the workers before the workers are tempted to take things into their own hands and use violence against the capitalists. But Wells hated the film, because of its absurd science-fiction aspect -- the machines that don't seem to make anything, that are hard physically to operate, the city which goes up vertically instead of sprawling into the suburbs, in short, the symbolic aspects of the film.)
To complicate matters further, although this is an entirely symbolic film, which doesn't make a lot of sense at a realist level, the American distributor (Paramount) decided to cut the symbolism out, as well as the entire subplot relating Fredersen and Rotwang, and the (fairly realistic) part of Fredersen's spy Slim, and the later versions (even in Germany) were based on that American "cut" version, about 25% shorter than the original film, which was itself destroyed. Much of the recent history has been the attempts to "reconstruct" the original film from outtakes, promotional stills, reviews of the premier, the censor's cards for the dialogue, and the musical score with cues. The book ends with an interesting discussion of the 1984 Giorgio Morodor version (which, tinted and with a rock soundtrack, has been compared to a long music video) and other modern (post-modern) adaptations.
The book was written before the complete original version of the film was rediscovered in 2008 (something the author predicted would never happen), so the discussion of the film itself is out of date; it's surprising that BFI continues to reprint this (last reprinting 2011) rather than replacing it with a revised version based on the complete film.
Generally, most critics were impressed by the technical aspects of the film, but considered the story to be silly; the Communists considered it proto-Nazi and the Nazi's as Communist propaganda. (Personally, I think it was most similar ideologically to H.G. Well's The Time Machine, in its "Fabian" argument that the capitalists should find a mediator with the workers before the workers are tempted to take things into their own hands and use violence against the capitalists. But Wells hated the film, because of its absurd science-fiction aspect -- the machines that don't seem to make anything, that are hard physically to operate, the city which goes up vertically instead of sprawling into the suburbs, in short, the symbolic aspects of the film.)
To complicate matters further, although this is an entirely symbolic film, which doesn't make a lot of sense at a realist level, the American distributor (Paramount) decided to cut the symbolism out, as well as the entire subplot relating Fredersen and Rotwang, and the (fairly realistic) part of Fredersen's spy Slim, and the later versions (even in Germany) were based on that American "cut" version, about 25% shorter than the original film, which was itself destroyed. Much of the recent history has been the attempts to "reconstruct" the original film from outtakes, promotional stills, reviews of the premier, the censor's cards for the dialogue, and the musical score with cues. The book ends with an interesting discussion of the 1984 Giorgio Morodor version (which, tinted and with a rock soundtrack, has been compared to a long music video) and other modern (post-modern) adaptations.
The book was written before the complete original version of the film was rediscovered in 2008 (something the author predicted would never happen), so the discussion of the film itself is out of date; it's surprising that BFI continues to reprint this (last reprinting 2011) rather than replacing it with a revised version based on the complete film.
Read
February 8, 2019Hezké (svižné) info o vzniku a zákulisí kultovního filmu Metropolis. Esteticky mě uchvátil někdy v pubertě, o jeho nešťastném příběhu a zajímavých inspiračních zdrojích jsem neměla ani potuchy. Moc se mi líbí přístup autora, že na film nahlíží jako zrcadlo 20. let 20. století a jeho nevyčerpatelné interpretace jako barometr jednotlivých dob - proměnu konotací během doby...
Já třeba po prvním shlédnutí (někdy v roce 2007) vnímala poselství filmu jako socialistické...
Já třeba po prvním shlédnutí (někdy v roce 2007) vnímala poselství filmu jako socialistické...
December 26, 2011
some interesting interpretations of the narrative, but I would have liked to have read more about the actual 18 month production of the film.
February 11, 2018
One of the weaker BFI books I've read
October 29, 2025
This British Film Institute monograph on the iconic Weimar era German silent film ‘Metropolis’ is a bit of a mixed bag, because on the one hand it offers some fascinating and crucial details as to the movie’s origins, production and reception, whilst also providing some rather obtuse and academically dense critical interpretations. It is not a bad text per se, however there is a presumption of understanding and a complexity of analysis that will challenge readers who are not thoroughly immersed in film theory. The author is writing for an audience that is not going to be the casual movie fan, and if one is not intimately conversant with the movie it’s hard to comprehend certain elements of the text. These limitations can and do restrict the readability and therefore the overall success of Elsaesser’s work.
The best elements of Metropolis are where Elsaesser examines the history of the film, including its pre-production background, the filming and editing process, and perhaps most intriguing, the hunt for a definitive version of the movie as it was originally shown. There are numerous anecdotes and notes as to how Fritz Lang, Thea von Harbou and UFA got 'Metropolis' into cinemas and its reception, and throughout this narrative the author emphasises the unique attributes of the movie. It's fascinating to read of how the movie was preceded by a novel written by Harbou, and the numerous literary and dramatic influences on the text (including works by Jules Verne, HG Wells, Ernst Toller, Max Reinhardt and others). That the film's production took so long and became an attraction for important identities to visit, including Billy Wilder, Alfred Hitchcock and Sergei Eisenstein, is discussed, and the author speaks to the expensiveness of the movie (it cost the production studio UFA 4.2 million Reichmarks which was more than UFA's entire profit for 1924-25). One cannot fault the text when it comes to offering signficant insights into how 'Metropolis' came to be.
Elsaesser also discusses and documents the critical reponse to the movie, from contemporaries and then later reviewers, and it's interesting to note how subdued if not hostile the reaction was to 'Metropolis'. HG Wells is reported "In an article for the New York Times taking Lang and UFA to task for having made "quite the silliest film" he had ever seen.". That Communists and Nazis also responded negatively to the movie is of some interest, and that all this hostility or at least commercial disdain led to many efforts to edit 'Metropolis' into something more palatable is spoken of in much depth by Elsaesser.
Where Metropolis starts to lose its way is when the author burrows deeply into the contested themes and meanings of the movie, and how he expresses his resultant analysis. I've already noted in this review that Elsaesser writes for cinephile academics, and it's rather unhelpful when one sees passages such as this:
I'm sorry, but trying to make sense out of this is going to be beyond many a non-scholarly reader. Furthermore, Elsaesser appears to expect the reader to have a deep knowledge of the movie, perhaps either watching it immeditaely before reading his book or even reading and watching concurrently. The monograph includes a plot summary at its back which would've been far better placed near the beginning.
There are several positive editorial aspects that deserve recognition; Metropolis is relatively short, offers numerous illustrations from the movie or photos related to those who made it etc, and Elsaesser provides copious notes to support his discussion. One can't fault the author for his efforts at conducting a most significant study of the film; it's just that at times his writing is somewhat impenetrable.
All up, Metropolis is a better than adequate monograph about what might be one of if not the most important silent movies ever made. Thomas Elsaesser knows what he is writing about and time and time again he demonstrates his insights and his ability to get into the historical nature and importance of the film. This isn't the most pleasureable or simple of film study texts, but it deserves consideration because 'Metropolis' still speaks to contemporary audiences.
The best elements of Metropolis are where Elsaesser examines the history of the film, including its pre-production background, the filming and editing process, and perhaps most intriguing, the hunt for a definitive version of the movie as it was originally shown. There are numerous anecdotes and notes as to how Fritz Lang, Thea von Harbou and UFA got 'Metropolis' into cinemas and its reception, and throughout this narrative the author emphasises the unique attributes of the movie. It's fascinating to read of how the movie was preceded by a novel written by Harbou, and the numerous literary and dramatic influences on the text (including works by Jules Verne, HG Wells, Ernst Toller, Max Reinhardt and others). That the film's production took so long and became an attraction for important identities to visit, including Billy Wilder, Alfred Hitchcock and Sergei Eisenstein, is discussed, and the author speaks to the expensiveness of the movie (it cost the production studio UFA 4.2 million Reichmarks which was more than UFA's entire profit for 1924-25). One cannot fault the text when it comes to offering signficant insights into how 'Metropolis' came to be.
Elsaesser also discusses and documents the critical reponse to the movie, from contemporaries and then later reviewers, and it's interesting to note how subdued if not hostile the reaction was to 'Metropolis'. HG Wells is reported "In an article for the New York Times taking Lang and UFA to task for having made "quite the silliest film" he had ever seen.". That Communists and Nazis also responded negatively to the movie is of some interest, and that all this hostility or at least commercial disdain led to many efforts to edit 'Metropolis' into something more palatable is spoken of in much depth by Elsaesser.
Where Metropolis starts to lose its way is when the author burrows deeply into the contested themes and meanings of the movie, and how he expresses his resultant analysis. I've already noted in this review that Elsaesser writes for cinephile academics, and it's rather unhelpful when one sees passages such as this:
“The violence of the modern functional object as it presents its smooth surface and imperturbably regular motion to the eye all but disguises the extent to which the fading image is cancelled not just visually, but contradicted by the one that follows. The annihilation, however, is not in the image but resides in the transfer of meaning that the superimposition gives to the neutrality of the clock. Its hands seem to ‘pick up’ the inert ones of the dial, but instead of echoing Freder’s effort, the clock distances itself from him by its indifference."
I'm sorry, but trying to make sense out of this is going to be beyond many a non-scholarly reader. Furthermore, Elsaesser appears to expect the reader to have a deep knowledge of the movie, perhaps either watching it immeditaely before reading his book or even reading and watching concurrently. The monograph includes a plot summary at its back which would've been far better placed near the beginning.
There are several positive editorial aspects that deserve recognition; Metropolis is relatively short, offers numerous illustrations from the movie or photos related to those who made it etc, and Elsaesser provides copious notes to support his discussion. One can't fault the author for his efforts at conducting a most significant study of the film; it's just that at times his writing is somewhat impenetrable.
All up, Metropolis is a better than adequate monograph about what might be one of if not the most important silent movies ever made. Thomas Elsaesser knows what he is writing about and time and time again he demonstrates his insights and his ability to get into the historical nature and importance of the film. This isn't the most pleasureable or simple of film study texts, but it deserves consideration because 'Metropolis' still speaks to contemporary audiences.
March 25, 2024
The book and content itself is fine. Metropolis is one of the most influential movies ever made and, unfortunately, one that I had a hard time sitting through. The movie is visually spectacular but my opinions on it echo those of the original 1920’s audience.
So, I picked this up as a way to learn more about different interpretations, behind the scenes information, etc. For those purposes, this is a great, little, read. I found the discussions of the different versions, as well as those on the political motifs, very interesting. Since publication, the version that the author believes will never be found has been discovered and it’s interesting to see if his predictions of that content was correct.
So why three stars? Well, towards the end of the book, Elsaesser pokes fun at what critics of the film often said: “Great movie, shame about the story”. I feel similarly for Elsaesser’s writing here. “Great retrospective, shame about the writing”.
Elsaesser might be the first author that I’ve found that seems both afraid of the comma as well as so indebted to it that the period becomes a rare oddity to be found. I’m serious about this. The writing style made me nauseous at some points because of these huge, run-on, sentences that either contain almost no punctuation, or entirely too much. He writes as though he is bragging about his ability to do so. Pretentious doesn’t even begin to describe it.
So, 4 stars for content and information. 2 stars for the horrendous writing practices. 3 stars to split the difference.
So, I picked this up as a way to learn more about different interpretations, behind the scenes information, etc. For those purposes, this is a great, little, read. I found the discussions of the different versions, as well as those on the political motifs, very interesting. Since publication, the version that the author believes will never be found has been discovered and it’s interesting to see if his predictions of that content was correct.
So why three stars? Well, towards the end of the book, Elsaesser pokes fun at what critics of the film often said: “Great movie, shame about the story”. I feel similarly for Elsaesser’s writing here. “Great retrospective, shame about the writing”.
Elsaesser might be the first author that I’ve found that seems both afraid of the comma as well as so indebted to it that the period becomes a rare oddity to be found. I’m serious about this. The writing style made me nauseous at some points because of these huge, run-on, sentences that either contain almost no punctuation, or entirely too much. He writes as though he is bragging about his ability to do so. Pretentious doesn’t even begin to describe it.
So, 4 stars for content and information. 2 stars for the horrendous writing practices. 3 stars to split the difference.
September 24, 2018
Elsaesser is an important voice in German film studies, and this volume of the wonder BFI Film Classics series delivers the goods. Naturally, there’s much more to say about the film than this slim volume allows, but Elsaessar’s way in situates Metropolis in its mythical and historic context wonderfully. He then dispels the idea of a complete, master cut of the film, concisely tracking the various versions available both at its initial release and over time. Metropolis is a massive and bizarre movie, brimmed with paradox and contradiction. It’s an uneven, incoherent masterpiece. Its idea primitive and expansively forward-thinking. A landmark of craft, while a perhaps middling example of performance—except for Brigitte Helm, who’s tremendous, despite the aggressive (mis)treatment from both her parents and Lang. A monumental mess of a movie that also becomes rather harmonious and uniform when placed in the right slant of strange light. No criticism seems sufficient, no praise entirely fair. Elsaessar gets at all of this in incisive, succinct work. Anyone invested in Metropolis needs to read it.
July 27, 2018
Film and television studies professor Thomas Elsaesser covers a lot of historical ground in only 75 pages in his edition of the BFI Film Classics series. Taking on Fritz Lang's Metropolis, Elsaesser writes about the making of the film, the multiple lost and existing versions, how those versions differ from each other and why they happened, and the mixed critical response to the film and how it has changed over time while also providing the political and cultural historical contexts for all this information. People who aren't as obsessed with film history as I am may find this a little dry, and Elsaesser does occasionally wander into academic buzzword territory, but the bulk of this book is fascinating and informative.
August 12, 2025
I thoroughly appreciated the chapters dealing with the various versions of Metropolis. I was intrigued to read of connections to A. Tolstoi, Willis O'Brien, Kurt Siodmak, Billy Wilder and Alfred Hitchcock.
However, analysis (which in my opinion was extreme over-analysis) left me wanting to get-the-darn-thing-read-already-and-be done-with-it. A randomly chosen example:
Rather, it exploits the potential of the vertical as a universally understood metaphor of social power, a pressure scale and measuring gauge, as well as drawing a historical time-line that reaches from the "tomorrow-land" of the penthouse suite to the "times immemorial" of the catacombs
However, analysis (which in my opinion was extreme over-analysis) left me wanting to get-the-darn-thing-read-already-and-be done-with-it. A randomly chosen example:
Rather, it exploits the potential of the vertical as a universally understood metaphor of social power, a pressure scale and measuring gauge, as well as drawing a historical time-line that reaches from the "tomorrow-land" of the penthouse suite to the "times immemorial" of the catacombs
Read
December 16, 2025The first book I've read in the BFI film classic series. It's a short 100 page essay about Metropolis, mainly talking about it's release history, it's many versions, and how the film has been interpreted over the years from early echoes of Nazi Germany through to becoming a sensational 80s icon. It was light on details about the actual making of the film, which is what I was really looking for, but it gave me a lot of background on the films history, and Thomas Elsaesser really knows his Metropolis. At times a bit too academic for my taste, but as a primer on the film it's a nice resource.
November 30, 2021
Insightful, the film has so many themes and Elsaesser does a good job of interweaving them without being confusing.
February 22, 2023
elsaesser u are very smart but -2 for too many numbers/dates
May 8, 2020
Over Fritz Lang's Metropolis. Boeiend wanneer ingegaan wordt op de ontstaansproces, de reconstructie van de film in archieven en de wijze waarop het door andere kunstenaars gebruikt is. De historische contextualisering is echter volledig blind voor de invloeden vanuit de lage cultuur en het zich daarin bevindende discours dat juist zo belangrijk is bij deze film. Verder is het overzicht van bestaande interpretaties soms wat erg onkritisch, bijv. naar Kracauers nogal waanzinnige opvattingen. Elsaesser lijkt bang om te kritisch te worden. Dat is zonde. Wat meer pit en scherpte was goed geweest.
February 2, 2013
Elsaesser does a great job of covering the different aspects of Metropolis in this book without dwelling too deep upon heavy interpretation or too trivial aspects of the film. Essentially, this covers just about all the general info you might want about the film, which is thoroughly satisfying.
July 28, 2024
"jitterbugging towards the apocalypse."
October 6, 2013
Good context on the discovered lost footage and great photos. The critical apparatus is a bit pretentious, but what else would one expect?
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews