There is also, less interestingly, a similarity in the narrative structure of the two films: the first half is spectacle and wonder, the second shows disintegration and chaos. (But in essence that’s quite a common story structure; cf Zulu!)
One of the insights Enno Patalas provides in his commentary track on Metropolis is the co-existence of medieval and ultra-modern societies in Lang’s vision of the future, which of course (along with the Moloch hallucination and Babel story) indicates how backward this society is in human terms, despite its futuristic trappings. So there is a sort of medieval quality to the later film, but at the same time it seems grounded in very modern, twentieth-century concerns, whereas one of the great things about Die Nibelungen is how thoroughly steeped it is in the ideas and aesthetics (heroism, honour; stately, ordered processions, detailed and lingering description, etc) of the ancient legendary mode. For all its moments of pageantry and its epic pretensions, Metropolis seems to me essentially to belong with Lang’s more lurid, action-oriented works – it’s a ‘prestige picture’ because of its production values, rather than its content – and I think maybe the story it tells is too facile and silly to really warrant calling it a ‘follow-up’ to Die Nibelungen. But I’d be interested to hear you say more about this.
No hard feelings, Schreck: nothing I said was intended in anger, just trying, in accord with your own no-nonsense approach, to set you straight about a misunderstanding. As far as I’m concerned you can be as challenging and/or snippy as you like (it makes the conversation interesting), just as long as you don’t mind me getting snippy in return. And you're right, I shouldn't be engaging in this argument until I've seen the reconstruction.HerrSchreck wrote:I get a little snippy when folks don't have the self awareness to realize when they've created a very distinct impression (in this case of not liking a film) and blame the impression on their interlocutor. I'm there now. You need to chill, Sloper-- nobody was "accusing" you of anything. I was merely defending my point that the film had a holy disservice of mutilation done to it my Mayer... a mutilation which you fully understand or support