By examining the perspectives reflected in Fritz Langs film, Metropolis (1927)

and its counterpart 1984 (1947) by George Orwell, the enduring concepts
portrayed in the texts are revealed. These are fundamentally linked to the
ideologies of the composers shaped by their own contextual influences as both
texts explore the universal concerns surrounding loss of individuality in dystopic
societies and the subsequent resistance from oppressed individuals. However,
Metropolis operates as a social commentary for a Modernist age experiencing
rapid industrialisation and bourgeoning capitalism, whilst Orwells didactic 1984
is framed by his turbulent post-WWII context of nationalism and military
supremacy.

When a distinct power imbalance exists the lower class of society will be
controlled and exploited, which can lead to their oppression and dehumanisation.
Langs perspective of the divided working and capitalist classes in Metropolis
reflects his concern over the exploitation of workers amidst the increasing
mechanisation and mass production during the Weimar Republics economic
recovery after WWI. In the opening wide shot, the workers mechanical,
synchronised motions coupled by the Expressionist use of chiaroscuro lighting
suggests that they are mere components of the machines with no unique
personalities, showing how Lang values the importance of individuality. This
dehumanisation is reinforced by the monolithic deity Moloch that is fed workers,
intensified by a low-angle shot and discordant music, to symbolise the working
class sacrifice to fuel the economic growth during Germanys Golden Twenties.
Lang sharply juxtaposes this monotonous lifestyle with lively music and classical
Art Deco architecture in the Eternal Gardens, where close-ups of the upper-class
capitalists costumed in risqu clothing highlight their freedom to express
themselves while the workers are suppressed. Lang characterises Fredersen,
Metropolis autocrat as a cruel capitalist through the intertitle they [the workers]
belong where they are, the Depths. Through this, Lang condemns industrialists
such as Henry Ford, who sacrificed workers rights to sustain their capitalistic
excesses. Therefore, Lang criticises the abuse of power by the upper classes to
control and exploit, repressing basic human values such as individuality and
autonomy.

Paralleling Langs notions, in his text 1984 Orwell asserts that a totalitarian
regime leads to the oppression and control of individuals in order to maintain
political power. However, his perspective, influenced by the destruction of civil
liberties during Stalins totalitarian regime, is that power abuse leads to
suppression rather than exploitation. This is reflected in the strong image
Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together
again in new shapes of your own choosing to highlight the Partys
omnipotent governance and manipulation of the populaces thoughts through
pervasive control strategies. In a policy reminiscent of the great purges of
Stalinist Russia, anyone accused of thoughtcrime is vaporised to prevent
freedom of expression. Unlike in Metropolis, this climate of fear coupled with the
ever-present surveillance of the Party with the threatening slogan Big Brother
is Watching You, encourages self-suppression rather than dehumanisation.
This notion is manifested through the bleak metaphor, If you want a vision of
the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, which portrays the
Partys ability to symbolically stamp out personal thoughts. Ultimately, the bleak
imagery of conformity in a nation that marched forward in unity thinking
the same thoughts, demonstrates a dystopian society that operates through
repressing individuality in order to maintain power, a perspective that Orwell
believed would be apparent in the post-atomic dictatorships following WW2.
Thus, despite reflecting different perspectives due to their contexts both texts
value the importance of avoiding power imbalances by arguing that the pursuit
for control driven by economic or political gain can suppress ones humanity and
individuality.

Both authors explore the innate human desire to attain freedom amidst the
abuse of power, which inevitably provokes resistance from oppressed individuals.
Lang values the need for harmonious coexistence between labour and capital in
order to avoid a dysfunctional society, emphasised by his 1920s context where
the Kapp Putsch revolt rising from struggles between social classes in the
Weimar Republic lead Germany into temporary disarray. In Metropolis, he draws
a biblical allusion to the Tower of Babel montage as an allegory for the lack of
communication and antagonism between labour and capital in 1920s Germany
to show the stratification of society in Metropolis, further revealed through the
sharp contrast between the pastoral mise-en-scene of the Eternal Gardens, and
the hellish industrial underground. However, Lang urges against the radicalism
seen in the Russian Revolution, suggesting that rebellion is too destructive as a
solution to social inequality with the violent wide-shot of the exploding HeartMachine during the workers revolt to metaphorically represent the collapse of
the city. Conversely, rather than rebelling Freder joins the hands of the workers
and Fredersen, symbolically uniting the two classes and fulfilling the prophecy
The mediator between head and hands must be the heart to show that
his empathy united the classes of Metropolis. Lang ultimately warns of how
oppression can lead to rebellion, but emphasises that social disparities can be
better resolved through communication between social classes as opposed to
revolution.

Although both texts examine similar intrinsic human qualities such as the desire
for freedom, Orwells 1984 suggests that a totalitarian regimes exertion of
power ultimately suppresses ones ability to revolt. Orwells perspective was
shaped by The Great Purges and Moscow Trials during the 1930s in Soviet Russia
which enabled Stalin to consolidate absolute power by ruthlessly silencing all
dissent. This is reflected in the recurring motif of two plus two equals five,
which the Party imposes upon Winston as punishment for resisting the ideals of
their regime through brutal torture amplified by the morbid image bowed, grey
coloured skeleton. Despite the Partys strict regulations, Winstons glass
paperweight operates as a symbol for untainted freedom but is smashed into
pieces to signify the ineffectiveness of an individuals rebellion against a
totalitarian regime. Ultimately, Orwells metaphoric, long-hoped for bullet
entered Winstons brain, signifies Winstons eventual submission to
demonstrate the futility of seeking individual agency in a society. The key
differences between the texts emerge in the resolutions, as Metropolis ends with
a hopeful resolution reflecting the Weimar Republics positive zeitgeist, whilst
Winstons ending line He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big
Brother. is seen as a final, crushing defeat that suggests no hope exists in a
system of power that suppresses individuals. Thus, both texts hold different

perspectives, as Langs optimism contrasts Orwells bleak view that revolution is

futile against a totalitarian regime that controls all facets of existence.

Hence, the contextual influences surrounding each text reveal the differing
perspectives of the authors regarding the enduring concepts of individuality and
resistance. Despite this, similar values such as the need for individuality and
freedom are evident in both texts and so both the similarities and differences of
the texts are explored.