Comparing Metropolis And Lang's Nineteen Eighty-Four
An Exploration of intertextual connections reveals the relationship between context and key values.
Through exploring perspectives and connections between texts, we can heighten our understanding of the significance between social/cultural influence and key principles. Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis (1927) and George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) both provide dystopic projections about a future where the corruption of power and the exploitation of technology create significant threats to humanity. The context of the two texts has obvious influence on the key concepts and values presented. The Weimar Republic (Germany) context of Lang’s Metropolis creates his fear of society’s growing corruption and mechanisation at the cost of dehumanisation, …show more content…
Lang witnessed Weimar Republic’s post-war struggle economically due to the blame for the upsets caused during the war, causing an unstable and anxious time leading to dissatisfaction among citizens. The idea of modernity was introduced which uses capitalism and mass production to resolve the economic issues at the time. The idea of oppressive technology was an influence to Lang as he is critical of modernist thinking, considering the use of technology and mass production as a significant factor leading to the dehumanisation of the population in a dystopian future. The values presented in Lang’s film contributed to Orwell’s understanding of the advancement of technology leading to a dystopian future. However, Orwell represents the use of technology as a tool for the government’s growing power and autocratic control, at the cost of losing individual liberty. Orwell’s perception of the future is influenced by the trauma caused during World War II and the Cold War as it brought death, privation and disorder. His context of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany enhanced his vision of a society where the leaders demand security, stability and predictability. Separated by a period of twenty years, both Lang and Orwell demonstrated their concerns of a dystopic future where humanity and …show more content…
The dehumanisation of society is influenced by its totalitarian government demanding stability and security. Orwell’s construction of a condensed form of English, Newspeak, highlights the party’s psychological manipulation and surrounds the society in a phony environment. Consistent with Metropolis, the lack of individuality is a consequence of the state’s autocratic control. Winston’s depressing depiction of his society ‘Today there was fear, hatred and pain, but no dignity of emotion, no deep or complex emotions’ conveys the people’s unawareness of the state’s alteration of essential human values. Orwell contrasts the freedom of the proles with the members of the outer party as Winston writes ‘The proles are human beings. We are not human’, accentuating their degraded status thus depicting the powerless but constricted party. Orwell constructs Winston as a determined defender of humanity and individuality, challenging the party’s prevention of human sexuality through his relationship with Julia, a metaphorical ‘blow struck against the party… a political act’. Winston’s perspectives are ultimately defeated as the coral paperweight, symbol of beauty, shatters along with his ideologies as he exclaims ‘So small it always was!’ Therefore, 1984 demonstrates Orwell’s perspective that individuals cannot overcome institutions that
Through exploring perspectives and connections between texts, we can heighten our understanding of the significance between social/cultural influence and key principles. Fritz Lang’s film Metropolis (1927) and George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) both provide dystopic projections about a future where the corruption of power and the exploitation of technology create significant threats to humanity. The context of the two texts has obvious influence on the key concepts and values presented. The Weimar Republic (Germany) context of Lang’s Metropolis creates his fear of society’s growing corruption and mechanisation at the cost of dehumanisation, …show more content…
Lang witnessed Weimar Republic’s post-war struggle economically due to the blame for the upsets caused during the war, causing an unstable and anxious time leading to dissatisfaction among citizens. The idea of modernity was introduced which uses capitalism and mass production to resolve the economic issues at the time. The idea of oppressive technology was an influence to Lang as he is critical of modernist thinking, considering the use of technology and mass production as a significant factor leading to the dehumanisation of the population in a dystopian future. The values presented in Lang’s film contributed to Orwell’s understanding of the advancement of technology leading to a dystopian future. However, Orwell represents the use of technology as a tool for the government’s growing power and autocratic control, at the cost of losing individual liberty. Orwell’s perception of the future is influenced by the trauma caused during World War II and the Cold War as it brought death, privation and disorder. His context of Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany enhanced his vision of a society where the leaders demand security, stability and predictability. Separated by a period of twenty years, both Lang and Orwell demonstrated their concerns of a dystopic future where humanity and …show more content…
The dehumanisation of society is influenced by its totalitarian government demanding stability and security. Orwell’s construction of a condensed form of English, Newspeak, highlights the party’s psychological manipulation and surrounds the society in a phony environment. Consistent with Metropolis, the lack of individuality is a consequence of the state’s autocratic control. Winston’s depressing depiction of his society ‘Today there was fear, hatred and pain, but no dignity of emotion, no deep or complex emotions’ conveys the people’s unawareness of the state’s alteration of essential human values. Orwell contrasts the freedom of the proles with the members of the outer party as Winston writes ‘The proles are human beings. We are not human’, accentuating their degraded status thus depicting the powerless but constricted party. Orwell constructs Winston as a determined defender of humanity and individuality, challenging the party’s prevention of human sexuality through his relationship with Julia, a metaphorical ‘blow struck against the party… a political act’. Winston’s perspectives are ultimately defeated as the coral paperweight, symbol of beauty, shatters along with his ideologies as he exclaims ‘So small it always was!’ Therefore, 1984 demonstrates Orwell’s perspective that individuals cannot overcome institutions that