From the great film "Metropolis"

From the film “METROPOLIS “

When I heard my professor talked about of this film during the history class, I thought this must be another boring old historical film. It is early morning and it is a history class. I felt so sleepy. But I never thought this kind of film will get my attention and make me sit up straight with eyes open.

The story begins with the bunch of mass production workers in a large factory. The author try to express the image of industrialize age with workers who working with hopeless pale face in the factory under the world. Their circle-lifes are working and resting with the machine.The only motivate that they have is the sound of the “bell” telling them that it is time to rest. It is such a torture scene.

After that, the story was suddenly shifted to which I rather refer it to a utopian “world”. The man who is a son of metropolis is living his life full of happiness surrounded by the servants. In this scene, the author tried to show the contrast between two classes of people which are low class people ( slaves ) and high class who has a power to control the slaves. The scene emphasize on the unpleasant world of machine age.

The turning point of this film is when “Maria” beutiful woman appears in front of the son of metropolis with group of children. After that Freder run after her to the under world ,and because of this , it leads him to a pathway that he really experience the truth, the life of slaves that working under his feet. In this scene I like the way how this film communicate with the viewers without saying a thing. The author make the viewers get into the core of the film without a dialougue , but from transferring character’s mind about the underworld through the emotion on the faces , and the comparison of the real world and visual world. ( such the scene that comparing between the machine as a monster the symbol of death and hell.)

Moreover, this film tries to show the different social level in that period between the utopia of the wealth and dystopia of the slaves. The age that the slaves have no voice to argue; they forced to work in order to continue their life.The core of this film is focusing on the Maria, who is the only warm light among the workers, and Freder who play a role of “mediator” try to find the middle point between those two classes of people from upper world and underworld creating the revolution to the social life of worker and to the evolution of machine age.

Lastly,The interesting part of this movie is not only about the plot, but also the scene of the future city or “dream” city; the skyscraper, the flyover and etc. The film reveals the direction of how the city will be developing in the future.

First analytical text form the book " From Bauhaus to our house "

"From Bauhaus to our house “by Tom Wolfe

Introduction

This book is one of the books which introduce us to new age “Modernism”.

The book started with the story of the Young American architects who want to escape

from what they called “colonial complex” to Europe seeking for new arts. They

joined the “Bauhaus School” which opened by Silver Prince or White God No.1-

Walter Gropius. As from the quote from the book the Bauhaus not just a school but

rather “ a commune , a spiritual movement, a spiritual movement, a radical approach

to art in all its forms, a philosophical center comparable to the Garden of Epicurus”.

When the architects and artist attend to the study at Bauhaus; one phrase that

they always hear is “starting from zero”. As I read through the chapter1 I saw one

paragraphs very interesting talking about one of the example

lesson at Bauhaus by Josef Albers. Albers is painter who teach the introduction

courses to the students. He walked into the class and deposits a pile of newspapers

on the table and said that “ he would return in one hour”. Most of the students tried

to impressed by turning the newspaper into fascinating pieces of art.

Then after he returned he would pick up the cathedral and airplanes and say: “These

were meant to be made of stone or metal-not newspaper”. After that he would pick

up the object which simply have taken a piece of newspaper and folded it like a “tent”

He said that “This is work of art in paper” and this is what make the best use of

paper because paper can fold without braking and paper has tensile strength that

can use for supporting two edges. For, I really like the quote that say “ this make use

of the soul of paper” This is simple but it is very sharp.

Gropius has his interest to the “proletariat” or another word “non

bourgeois”. The Bauhaus style must proceed from certain firm assumptions; they

tried to purpose the new concept of architecture that “was being created for

workers” and “ the new architecture must reject all things bourgeois”. This means

that architecture is become open to everyone in the class. Gropius and his friends

form a compound that try to produced the sort of avant-gardism that makes up the

history of 20^th century art. They tried to new perception of people and create a better

social life for everyone.

Furthermore, there is agreement that the members of the groups have to

be accept. Their goal is to create things that when people see it, they would say that

it is “non-bourgeois”, and there are some certain aspects that the architecture is non-

bourgeois. The building must be constructing in the form concrete, steel, wood glass,

and stucco. The color must also be white, beige, gray, and black. Moreover, for the

structural elements of the building ; the roofs must be flat making clean right angle

with the building façade. In addition, all the elements must be made by mechanic

new technology. The new concept or “Modern Architecture” approaches.

If we were to compare the modern architect in the early century to the late

century. We can noticed that in the early stage everything must be restrict to the

set of rules and beliefs that say that this is the right thing. For example, the design of

the worker housing. It has flats roofs with no cornices, shear walls and no

windows architraves or raised lintels, no capitals or pediments ( in other words :

there is no such things that refer back to the history) ,and even no color.

Simple interior decoration with no wallpaper, no drapes, no Wilton rugs with

decorative flowers, no lamps with shades and bases , with a natural tones of material

such as bentwood and etc. In conclusion, there is no “decorative” elements in the

house For sure , the workers would have complain “ What a house ! ”. In my

opinions, the house is a place where people come back from tire day would feel like

they are comfort and cozy. I think this type of house would mentally destroy the

owners. But what can they do, during that time the “workers” have no voice.

Comparing with the architecture in the late era the “Guild House” by Venturi.

The idea that against the modern architect make people point eyes on him. He

choose “red” brick to create the upper part of the façade , this seems to be “

bourgeois” , this is because it does coherent with the “ smog-smudged” brick of the

run-down working–class housing around that area. Furthermore, he placed the

huge columns at the entrance, but in contrast this will see as a decorative elements

with no capitals and no pediment like the historical column. This is also because

he placed in the middle of the entranceway which making it does not look grand but

rather distract. Lastly, the balcony which seems to be decorative , but it rather looks

cheap from the mass-production process.

In conclusion , we can see the changes to the perception as the movement

grow up. As one of the quote said about Venturi “he was doing the same thing, but

he was updating the process”. This means he doesn’t try to abandon what have been

create in the past, but rater changes and development for the society.