Channelling a zeitgeist of Totalities, Metropolis explores how dystopic values effect in missing of tenderness. The reductionism of the workers, peccant to exhausted creation through the exact tenor of costuming and emotionless assemblage tongue during “Shift Exchange”, coercioneshadows the deteriorating economic birth as Germany approached the Great Depression. The dehumanisation of the proletariats as they actuate through the Worker’s City is emphasised by the actuatement of intertitles dacknowledge the shelter. It suggests that the workers feel beseem part-among-among of the professional elevator they are riding in, mirroring their political status as the recurring motif of secondary ‘Hands’ to the remarkable ‘Head’;Â addressing the emerging post-war political stratification accustomed by Lang’s first parley. The workers’ ghastly substantiality sharply contrarietyed with the gaiety and evening of the Eternal Gardens, a distorted orthodox insinuation to the Garden of Eden. The glittering courtesans and communion are ironically dehumanised, as their frolicking in this utopian, idyllic setting gives them a deified thus-distant impure nature. Lang thus degrades their tenderness until what dregs is an animalistic baseness, proud by their lookist acting loud of the diction in post-war Weimar nightlife. Consequently, the film reveals Metropolis as a cinematic masterpiece hybridising transmitted migratory Germany and the post-war globe single modernist continuance.
In exact contrariety, Orwell, holds a deeply pessimistic perspective, specifically positing the decrepitude of class in apology to hardship. 1984 is a absolved reaction to the predominant 1940’s political orthodoxy which blindly lauded the totalitarian methods of the USSR, and as such, expounds the infallible discomfiture of tenderness lowerneathneath propound regulate. The “two minutes hate” is seen to easily parry the citizenry’s lifeless frustrations to an manifest hostile target, highlighting the malleability of ethnical feeling, while the heretic Goldstein’s ambiguousness evokes that of Soviet dissident Leon Trotsky, thus allowing Orwell-behaved to equate the Part-amongy’s cruel practices with the USSR’s. In specification, whilst the representation of a third single, scant top of examination allows coercion the capacity of Winston’s exact heterogenity, the parataxis in “He loved Big Brother” is quivering, and suggests Orwell’s determined avowal in the infallible decrepitude of the ethnical ardor counter hardship. It is a bare coda in contrariety to that of Metropolis, thus emphasizing the infallible irrefragable of the ethnical ardor by heavy coercionces. Furthermore, the remotest dismantling of singleal argue is illustrated in O’Brien’s self-reflexive “They got me crave ago”, suggesting his preceding heterogenity, now dismantled, with such nihilism emanating from Orwell’s acknowledge misinstruction and expatriation by pro-Soviet politicalist comrades whilst serving during the Spanish Civil War. Further high in the Part-amongy’s mantra “He who regulates the elapsed regulates the coming” this situation emphasises the eternallylasting irrefragable of ethnical look lowerneathneath heavy regimes.
Metropolis too condemns the retrogradation among Langs political zeitgeist by capturing the baneful consequences of shapes, correspondent a limit of inconstancy in the rebellions counter a weak democracy. Lang reflects Hitler’s weak Beer Hall Putsch in 1923, through the orthodox insinuation of the composition of the Tower of Babel, coercioneshadows the damnation of Metropolis to moralally deter counter tumult and shape. Fredersen’s wild dwelling-upon of, “where is my son?!” coupled with showy acting in an Lookist guise emphasises his recondite emotional brawl, positioning parleys to align with Lang’s perspective that in the violent-effort to “rise counter” the exhibit, the coming of ensuing generations conciliate be concerned. By extension, the proximity of Maria’s violent-effort to seal the flooding counter Grot’s relief in initiating this exexfluctuate affirms Lang’s perspective that it is distant elapsed arduous to wreath end shapeary exchange, correspondent Germany’s cataclysmic limit of hyperinflation fuelled by the Ruhr uprising in 1923. Thus, Lang’s portrayal of shape to devolve baneful consequences absolvedly stems from contextual swing of the revolts in Weimar Germany.
Unlike Metropolis, 1984 draws on the avowals of the spell to exhibit an ideological elegancy of technology as a propagandist dupe coercion construction. In care with his obsession with social protection and through recurring motifs of surveillance, Orwell-behaved portrays technology as a media coercion the Part-amongy to accumulate unchallenged orthodoxy and misgiving, obvious in Winston’s apprehensive tenor, ” … no method of proficient whether you were entity watched at any moment”, representing missing of single agency. Embodied in the beastly singleification, “you failure a draw of the coming, think a boot stamping on a ethnical face-coercion eternally,” and compounded by the verity that “Minitrue’s” technology allows the elapsed to be ” … continuancesed, the continuancesure was coerciongotten, the rest became verity.” Relaying contextual misgivings of a feasible Stalinist regime, Orwell’s polyptoton illustrates that spell and ‘truth’ can be obliterated by technology, reducing them to unaffected symbols of ethnical fallibility. Furthermore, community can be “vaporised”, “You conciliate be annihilated in the elapsed as well-behaved-behaved as in the coming. You conciliate neternally feel existed”, though the anaphoric representation of “will” is ironic past 1984 operates as Orwell’s moral comment. Orwell-behaved aligned with Lang’s perspective that there is no possibility of a coming when the misconduct of eventual boundaries through technology as a dupe coercion construction effects in such a dystopic communion.