The city has come to represent an achievement of man and the progress which can be made in the name of progress and potentially more appropriately, profit. This mentality has the ability to turn the city and the rationalism which surrounds it into a monstrosity that ignores the humanity of the people. Fritz Lang and his film Metropolis showcase the ability for the city to become a truly monolithic entity which dwarfs those who live it. The question I wish to pursue is one of the cities character.
While I have limited time to discuss the role of the city as a character, it is clear that the role that Metropolis plays is larger than it may seem upon first glance. Upon second glance the best way I have found to view the city is as a much more primordial organism that is concerned with only supporting and expanding itself. To think like this requires one to look at the people within the city as the organisms supporting the mechanisms which the city needs to survive, and much of the film supports this.
Primary amongst this point is the argument which is brought up as one of the few key cleavages of the film. This is the relationship between the mind and the hands, two integral components which keep the city expanding and operating. The issue with this initial relationship is its self-destructive nature as the hands – or workers – are being worked literally to death in the name of the city, which in itself is made to seem archaic and pagan. It becomes a focus of a film to right the abuses of the mind against the hands, and the means of doing this is the mediator.
With the emergence of this mediator, there comes the risk of the entire city being brought down by Hel and her creator. This is reminiscent of a form of virus attempting to topple the otherwise healthy body. This culminates in the rejection of the threat and the uniting of the body’s elements. This is instrumental of the city’s desire to grow. While it can be difficult to divorce the humanity from the situation and the difficulties which may arise from this new union it is inescapable how the plays an important factor when viewing the city as a character in itself.
In summary the organism that is the city is important to consider as an entity which is self-interested in maintaining itself. While it requires magical realism, it is important to understand these unique portions of Lang’s film such as this theme.
Your statement “the people within the city as the organisms supporting the mechanisms which the city needs to survive” reminds me a lot of Miliutin’s Magnitogorsk, where the workers are creating their own paradise. However, for Magnitogorsk, the workers are promised a bright future if they tough out a few years of hard labour, while in Lang’s film the workers are trapped in the oppressive society. In either case the city would not exist without the hands to build and maintain it, but it would also crumble (and did in the case of Magnitogorsk) without the mind to properly plan it out.
It’s interesting to think of the city as an organism. Is it a truthful metaphor? The Chicago School of urban sociology (1930s) developed an “ecological” understanding of the city. Le Corbusier also thought of the city as an organism, albeit in a very different (and somewhat cruder) way. In his case, it was like a body, in which the roads were like the circulatory system. Should we think of the city as an organism, or does this just end up confusing matters? In particular, does it obscure human agency, if we are all just cells in an organism?