criterionforum.org

Robert Wheeler wrote:If Huppertz actually suggested a playback speed of 25-27 frames for his own score, then he was flat out wrong.

That's quite a bombastic statement, considering Hupperz was Hupperz and you're a guy posting on a web board using nothing but personal preference.

I just don't believe it. Everything about that score is written to be played at a much slower speed. He was often sat there playing the music when they were shooting to impart the intended mood. There is no way they were shooting at 25-27 frames, so I just can not see how any statement such as that which is attributed to Huppertz can be anything other than errant nonsense.

I think music of this film is a lot more important than people realize. Metropolis appears to me to be an attempt to create a Wagnerian style operatic work with the aid of the vision and composition that film offers. I don't think Lang was actually thinking that much about the limitations of playing the film in the present day to a wider audience. I don't think he thought about it much at all, but I suspect his ideal for presenting the film could only have been achieved for a minority of the audience (much like opera and classical works at the time) and have the full score underpinning and driving the whole thing.

But Metropolis and it's score at 25 fps? It's wrong, it's wrong, it's wrong.

Edit:

I'll add it is not personal preference that leads me to these conclusions, it is no small degree of skill, intelligence and experience.

Robert Wheeler wrote:I just don't believe it. Everything about that score is written to be played at a much slower speed. He was often sat there playing the music when they were shooting to impart the intended mood. There is no way they were shooting at 25-27 frames, so I just can not see how any statement such as that which is attributed to Huppertz can be anything other than errant nonsense.

I think music of this film is a lot more important than people realize. Metropolis appears to me to be an attempt to create a Wagnerian style operatic work with the aid of the vision and composition that film offers. I don't think Lang was actually thinking that much about the limitations of playing the film in the present day to a wider audience. I don't think he thought about it much at all, but I suspect his ideal for presenting the film could only have been achieved for a minority of the audience (much like opera and classical works at the time) and have the full score underpinning and driving the whole thing.

You may think it's "wrong, wrong, wrong." But with all due respect, there is no evidence that the original film was ever shown at a length of 210 minutes or anything close to it. It lasted less than 2 1/2 hours. And as I posted in the 'Nosferatu' thread, the screenings of the still uncut version at Nollendorf Platz following the premiere had show times three hours apart (this I discovered when I consulted the original program at the Kinemathek in Berlin).

It is clear that the projection speed at 25 or 26 fps (which seems to have been the speed at the premiere) makes the film seem fast, and slowing the film down to 20 fps on WinDVD does produce a more naturalistic speed. But Lang was not a 'realist', and one can look at any number of silent films and see that the shooting fps varies within a single film, manipulated to produce certain effects (the carriage in Nosferatu that takes Hutter to Orlok's castle is an obvious example). The more creative directors clearly did not believe that the camera should function like a metronome. They used varying tempos, just as did conductors like Mahler and Furtwängler. (Watching films at 20 fps on WinDVD makes this very clear.) Viewing 'Metropolis' at 20 fps makes it clear that the shooting speed was also varied. The scene of the workers shuffling mechanically into the elevators was shot to show at a slower speed than the scene in the "Eternal Gardens," which is at a different speed and it is clear that that the shooting speed for this two sequences was different. When you think about, this makes sense in expressive terms.

My own theory--without any evidence--is that Lang agreed to speed up the projection speed (but not from 18 fps) to avoid cutting the film, which was made under the Parafumet agreement,knowing that a longer film would be cut by the Americans (as it was anyway.)

I agree with you about the importance of the music. Lang was interested in realizing a Gesamtkunstwerk; he saw film as a synthesis of the arts, and was quite explicit about it at the time. Finally, on the matter of audience--if you read Lang's many interviews, lectures, and articles from the time, he was clearly a populist, with a real sense of mission about bringing art to the masses--worldwide.

Yes, I don't think the camera was cranked at a fixed speed throughout the film. In fact one of theories I have had is that some of the shots from later in the production were deliberately undercranked to save on film stock on the vastly over budget production.

For whatever reason, if you run the 2001 version of the film at 16fps in Sony Vegas 8, it runs to 3 hours and 5 minutes. I guess there must be some factor I have missed in my calculations here, but if you like I can send you a copy of the project, or do a timecoded render to show you it is true.

As I said, the 210 minute figure has been liberally quoted from Koerber and I assume that evidence came to light on the reel that substantiated it. As I said in my essay, I feel the lack of certainty on the playback speed came from the lack of certainty on the run length of the missing material. I also suspect that the official measurements Koerber unearthed were actually wrong. It must be noted that the quoted figure of 4,189 meters is some way off of the other quoted figure of 13,823 feet. I think the correct length is either 12,600 (at an average rate of 16 fps) or 14175 feet (at an average of 18fps).

I really do not think Lang made the film with the focus on his contemporary audience. I don't think he even really cared too much about the script or the plot. I think he used it to indulge his creative whim and direct a series of meticulous shots that combined into a rather grandiose spectacle. He took others people's money and made the film he wanted to, and at the end of it, I don't think he cared if people saw it the way he wanted to, he was just happy to have made it. With that in mind i think it requires someone on board to take it by the scruff of the neck and say "this is the best way to present the film to a audience".

But anyway, I reflected on the reasons for the premiere and subsequent speed ups in my essay. At the end of the day, the cinema owners wanted to pack as many of them in as they could into as many performances as possible.

No, the key of the score is irrelevant in these circumstances. It is not the key that dictates the pace, it is the cues that the orchestra have to fit into to. If the film runs faster then the cues come faster and the band has to play faster to fit in.

I think you are missing the point here. I don't think he even really thought about people watching the film. I think Lang was just more interested in making it just how he wanted to. This is also one of the reasons I think it is important to assemble as much as possible of the individual versions of the films as well, because I think you would find that they are three very different films.

Pal speed up should have been removed from consideration with the DVD format. Pal speed up drives me bonkers, and there is very little software that can do a proper slowdown.

As I said, the 210 minute figure has been liberally quoted from Koerber and I assume that evidence came to light on the reel that substantiated it.

From a 2002 Film Threat interview with Martin Koerber:

FILM THREAT: The originally running time for Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" has been cited at various lengths by various sources; the Internet Movie Database claims it was 210 minutes. For the record, how long did the original version of "Metropolis" run? Also, what parts of the film were removed and has any of this footage ever been located?

MARTIN KOERBER: I don't know where these figures come from, and I definitely think they are wrong. The original German reviews from January 1927 give two-and-a-half hours as the running time, thus approximately 150 minutes. This whole minutes business is a little disturbing to me, as it is besides the point. What is important is how long the film is, not how long it plays, because that can vary all over the place according to the running speed. The original running speed (according to the music score) was very fast: 28 fps. Certainly faster than we what would like to see on a screen nowadays, and also faster than most projectors would like. Natural movement occurs at 20fps, except for the last reel with the chase around town, which is deliberately under-cranked to appear much faster; that appears even fast when the film is run at 20fps.

I don't know of anywhere that Martin Koerber has stated that the print found in Argentina is supposed to run 210 minutes. That wasn't stated on any of the news articles I saw when this news first broke. I have never seen any primary source apart from the unreliable IMDb that gives the running time as 210 minutes.

When it was stated that a quarter of the film was missing, that was based on the original film length (4189 metres) and the 2001 restoration length (3241 metres), which indicates about 22.7% missing.

I'll add it is not personal preference that leads me to these conclusions, it is no small degree of skill, intelligence and experience.

Not the kind of statement that adds any weight to your arguments. If you want to convince people you are right, you need to back up your arguments with facts. That you prefer the film at 16fps is merely your opinion, not a fact. That you think Lang was more interested in the making of the film rather than how his film would be viewed by audiences is your opinion. I've seen no evidence to support this assertion.

What was missing in terms of the plot line can be pretty well determined by Huppertz's copy of the screenplay, which is included as a PDF file with the 'Studienausgabe' or critical edition. (It is also interesting for the deletions, scenes that have been penciled out) Also, Enno Patalas's book, 'Metropolis in/aus Trümmern: Eine Filmgeschichte' (2001),gives a shot by shot reconstruction of the entire film making use of the screenplay. We know what was missing, we just don't always know exactly what it looked like.

Can anyone cite a feature film released in 1927 which was unambiguously intended to be run at 16fps? That sounds insanely slow to me by comparison with pretty much everything else being made at the time - bearing in mind that this was the year that 24fps was definitively established as the standard.

Here's a piece by Kevin Brownlow on the subject - he wrote it in 1980 after wrestling with speed issues umpteen times when making Hollywood, especially because of the frequent (but intended) differences between camera speed and projection speed.

This paragraph is worth highlighting:

One can only have sympathy for those who programme silent films. But sympathy evaporates as soon as one has to endure slow projection. It's bad enough to be deprived of the sound of the symphony orchestra (which accompanied all first-run films in the big theatres), but to be forced to watch the films in dead silence at an equally deadly pace is too much to ask of anyone. William Wellman's spectacular war film Wings (1927) moves at an exhilarating pace when projected at the speed at which it was shown originally- 24 fps- but it drags miserably when shown at 16. At one of its last major showings in Britain, a few years ago, the audience emerged complaining of its slowness. Their complaints were not aimed at the projectionist, for they thought it was an inherent fault of all silent films. Yet it had been shown at 16 fps- and had lasted nearly an hour longer than in 1927. That attitude shows no respect towards the films of the past. It does them a grave disservice.

The chart at the end is also revealing, as it suggests that even shooting films at 16fps had pretty much died out by the early 1920s. Granted, this is Hollywood, not Germany, but it's likely the pattern there was similar.

MARTIN KOERBER wrote: The original running speed (according to the music score) was very fast: 28 fps. Certainly faster than we what would like to see on a screen nowadays, and also faster than most projectors would like. Natural movement occurs at 20fps, except for the last reel with the chase around town, which is deliberately under-cranked to appear much faster; that appears even fast when the film is run at 20fps.

Isn't that revealing? Koerber himself states that natural movement only occurs at 20fps, but he still doesn't consider using that speed simply because the premiere speed was different (faster). In my view, this places a far too high importance on a historical event that may (or may not) have presented the film in an erroneous way in the first place. You could argue, as is hinted at in this thread, that Lang didn't want the movement to look natural, thus creating an air of unreality. An aesthetic argument, then, not a technical one, but such an argument would actually need backing, and considering his other films, I can't see much to support it at the moment. Lang was not a surrealist, but he paradoxically rather creates a feeling of the magical/eerie by presenting the things he shows in an extremely realistic way for the time (think "Nibelungen" and especially "Frau im Mond" with all its technical details).

I would have to hear the Huppertz score at 16fps and see how it works that slow, but from my experience with classical music I would say that performances of a classical piece can vary extremely in speed without in any way endangering the music. Listen to a Bruckner symphony conducted by Solti (fast) and Celibidache (extremely slow), but both makes sense, even though it gives a totally different impression. Or think of the infamous metronome indications by Beethoven (extremely fast), that many conductors (rightly or not) simply ignore because they think that played at Beethoven's original tempo the music doesn't make any sense. Who knows, perhaps Huppertz was similarly 'wrong'?

As to David's question whether there were any complaints ever raised about the projection speed of Lang's other silents: not that I can remember, but when I first watched "Frau im Mond", I found the speed somewhat too slow, especially in the first half of the film. Curiously, I didn't have the feeling anymore when watching the disc for the second time, so it may have just been a feeling of 'dragging' that had more to do with the film itself than the projection speed. In any case, I think that the projection speed of all the other Lang silents on the current discs is perfect. And none of them runs at 24fps, btw. But with "Frau", especially as this is such a very late silent, one might argue that 24fps might even be more correct.

I may be making a salient point here, but principle shooting on Metropolis began in 1925 and the cut was completed in 1926. Production competed before any consensus was reached on frame rates.

I am ready to concede that the shooting speed could have been as high as 18fps, and I think the score would still work at that speed. I feel I have a distinct advantage over a number of the people commenting here, because i have actually seen the film at these speeds. There is little point drawing comparison to other films because it is an entirely relative issue specific to each film of the era. I would challenge Koerber's assertion that the film generally exhibits natural movement at 20 fps. It is simply too fast.

Like I said, I think this is not an issue of reproducing what may have been a historical wrong in the play back of the film. It think it is about sticking in a producer whose sole job it is to make common sense decisions to en sure the delivered product is ideal for the current audience. If 18fps was a common projection speed in that era, then it must have been the one Lang had in mind as the basic rate of presentation when he shot Metropolis.

Also, I think somewhere up above some comments which I did not make got attributed to me.

Robert Wheeler wrote:I am ready to concede that the shooting speed could have been as high as 18fps, and I think the score would still work at that speed. I feel I have a distinct advantage over a number of the people commenting here, because i have actually seen the film at these speeds.

I've seen a chunk of it at 18fps when testing optimum projection speeds for a screening I arranged with live accompaniment in the early 1990s, and it seemed far too slow. I can't remember what speed we ultimately used - somewhere in the 20-22 range, I suspect.

If someone can point me towards a half decent public domain print that I can download tonight, I will produce some samples at different frame rates tomorrow (suddenly I feel like Wimpy), although it will omit the music of course.

I also thought I would mention that I think the Masters of Cinema version of Metropolis which was issued by Eureka has a notable image quality issue. There seems to be some kind of clipping going on, with some overdriven whites spoiling the image. I suspect this is due to someone who does not quite know what they are doing playing with levels tools.

Discounting my issues with the frame rate, the earlier 2003 DVD with the English titles has a pretty faultless presentation on DVD, and for me is the de facto transfer. I must admit I have not seen the scholar's version, but the original Eureka release is good enough for me, as it seems to be a flat transfer of the master. The most they have done is convert from Computer RGB to Studio RGB levels if that.

Okay so I'll step up to the plate here and ask the obvious...

Since Robert Wheeler is assuming a stance of technical condescention viz
1) Martin Koerber,
2) Enno Patalas,
3) Gottfried Hupperz,
4) Eureka/Masters of Cinema and the telecine operators at the FW Murnau Foundation, and
5) Perhaps even Fritz Lang himself
6) the humble membership of this low forum

-- may we ask who Robert Wheeler is?

(Understand me: the urge-- and right-- to question the realm of academy is as essential as nourishing one's self on scholarship, but the pinging aside of reams of study sheerly by "feel" and "ear" here is just... getting comic, at least without credential!)

I don't claim to have any expertise on this subject (though I am fascinated by this discussion), but isn't the argument that some of these films are unbearably slow at 16 or 18fps just as irrelevant as the argument you attribute to Robert, that 16fps just "feels" right?

swo17 wrote:I don't claim to have any expertise on this subject (though I am fascinated by this discussion), but isn't the argument that some of these films are unbearably slow at 16 or 18fps just as irrelevant as the argument you attribute to Robert, that 16fps just "feels" right?

Well, 16-18fps would certainly have been considered slower than average by the mid-1920s, so it's not just a question of "feel" - there's the historical context too.

Metropolis seems to be a rather special case. It is, to be sure, a problem to view a silent film that was projected at something like 20 fps at 25 fps, because the experience of viewing it is different from how it was actually seen in the 1920s, and inevitably this impacts the aesthetic effect of the work. In the case of Metropolis, however, the speed at which we see it on DVD is actually somewhat slower than the speed at which it was projected in 1927 Berlin. This is one case where we are actually seeing the DVD transfer of the film at a speed close to how it was seen by its original audiences.

I have not looked into this, but does anyone know who was the original source of the idea that it was over three hours long?

Also, does anyone know a source that lists the length of Lang's various films in meters? I am curious as to how the length of Metropolis in meters compares to the two two-part films that preceded it, Dr. Mabuse der Spieler and Die Nibelungen.

I am certainly not being condescending towards the above mentioned people, I am putting my point of view and the reasoning behind it. So often when some tries to put across a contentious point, not matter how well argued, people pop up and try and make it a personal thing.

Is it worth me pointing out that it is plain to see that I have nothing but high praise for all the people mentioned? I think the work they have done is brilliant. That I disagree with one or two production decisions does not mean I am criticising them. Did I not say in my essays that Martin Koerber's work is the benchmark of restoration?

If you want to see a scathing criticism, ask me to write a essay on the MK2 amputation of Chaplin's "The Circus". That is quite possibly the worst digital "work" you will ever see. I am certain that a flat unprocessed transfer straight off the reel would look much much better.

And who am I? Well, I work in video and film.

I've got to say, I guess the 2003 DVD is not in as wide circulation, but anyone that owns it as well as the Masters of Cinema version should be able to detect the problem. The odd thing is, the English version of the print was also issued on a newspaper freebie a few years ago, and I would have assumed it would have used an identical master to the one that was use for the official 2003 release. However, it exhibited exactly the same problem as the Masters of Cinema version which has German titles, and is therefore a different source master.

It made me wonder if maybe the original 2003 disc was revised at some point to correct minor glitches (such as the "Feder" spelling error in the titles, and a title that looks very interlaced) but was encoded or mastered with inferior settings, mirrored in the Masters of Cinema issue. I do not have a copy of the newspaper give away to check if the "Feder" error is gone, but if it is let me know!

One thing I will say without reserve though is that the Masters of Cinema print is very inferior to the 2003 DVD. I got my copy as a replacement for my 2003 DVD which developed a big crack which made it hard to play. When I played it I was very disappointed with the image quality, and ended up going back to the broken disc to try and get a decent rip. The booklet is quite good though. I guess the cover is nicer too, as opposed to 2003 disc's mocked up half original design in the general style of the poster but incorporating a still from he film.

Robert Wheeler wrote:I am certainly not being condescending towards the above mentioned people

Robert Wheeler wrote:I also thought I would mention that I think the Masters of Cinema version of Metropolis which was issued by Eureka has a notable image quality issue. There seems to be some kind of clipping going on, with some overdriven whites spoiling the image. I suspect this is due to someone who does not quite know what they are doing playing with levels tools.

I did not see the guy that authored the DVDs name in that list...

Robert Wheeler wrote:I did not see the guy that authored the DVDs name in that list...

Don't be disingenuous. The person you're potentially libelling ("someone who does not quite know what they are doing") is easily identifiable, as you've named the company and the specific release. Indeed, the fact that MoC's producer regularly posts here makes it highly likely that the individual in question will read your comment.

As for your claim to "work in video and film", well bully for you. I work in video and film. So does Jean-Luc Godard. So, indeed, do a great many people who post here. What exactly are your qualifications that justify your supercilious tone?

I just made my comments. Read them or ignore them. I mean, who do you need to be to make such comments and not be accused of being pompus, Steven Spielberg?

The reason I said I worked in video and film was because it was asked who I was. Stating I work in video and film implies a degree of technical knowledge and know how. Hence it is relevant.

I am also fairly sure I have not libelled anyone. This is flannel juice and gibberish.

I would also be suprised if the producer of the Masters of Cinema discs actually has much (if anything) to do with the encoding and mastering of the discs. As far as I am aware, the Masters of Cinema Metropolis set was just a repackaged issue of the original German release.

And I'll say, I think Eureka is a great company. I actually liked them so much I went out of my way to discuss with them bringing a film of my own to release, even though it was out of their mainstream of interest, purely on the measure of the standard of their catalog.

So all this trying to make out I'm slagging people off just because I noticed a genuine glitch and i have an opinion on the frame rate, it is just plain silly. I am almost suprised noone has told me off for noticing the "Feder" spelling mistake...

Well, no-one has told you off for your spelling mistakes in this thread either, have they? Don't take this the wrong way, but can I suggest that you take your theory over to the forums at Nitrateville or Silver Screen Oasis? There are people over there who have more specialist knowledge in silent film and who would be able to discuss the technical issues in a more dispassionate and authoritative way.

Ha ha, I don't need to. I have my own forum, and I can post there and nobody reads and nobody replies, but nobody disagrees either!

Robert Wheeler wrote:Ha ha, I don't need to. I have my own forum, and I can post there and nobody reads and nobody replies, but nobody disagrees either!

I can see from the times on our two posts that you thought long and hard about your response. In a way that seems to sum this discussion up, so it seems pointless to participate any further.

Looks like I had better add being quick witted to my list of sins then...

You guys do realise that it is precisely because there are so few people that have the guts to say something that is remotely contentious that so much of the cinema and television that makes it to the screen these days is completely and utterly without merit, don't you? I really don't see why having a point of view, substantiating it, and then insisting the criticism is relevant and incisive causes such indignation.

The fellow who initially responded to my first comment was very polite. Since then the responses have generally amounted to "if you think the film runs that slow you are obviously an idiot" and proceeded to "just who are you to question the deities that prepared the hallowed masters?".

If Lang himself somehow turned up here and started posting under an assumed name, I would fully expect some of you guys to rip him to shreds.

Really, it is strange how politics pervade all areas of life. You don't like somebody's point of view, you question the persons character and try to discredit them as a loon.