Additional Reading List:
- · A Pattern Language (Christopher Alexander)
- · The Failure of Modern Architecture (Brent Brolin)
This film is not of today or of the future.
It tells of no place.
It serves no tendency, party or class.
It has a moral that grows on the pillar of understanding:
“The mediator between brain and muscle must be the heart.”
Thea von Harbou,
Writer,
Metropolis (1927)
What if perhaps in the future, high-rise buildings become so powerful that they are perceived as a new city within?
What if the cities become so great that in fact they could divide the society into 2? The one who is in control and the one is being controlled?
The essence of the storyline for Metropolis, produced in 1927 forecasted the scenario of living condition of human perhaps hundred years ahead in the future (there is no suggestions of the actual timeframe). The humans will be divided into two groups - the planners (who own the metropolis), and the workers (who make the city works). Separated apart from each 2 different worlds, one is high above the ground (heaven?), and one is underground – the city for workers. So there are attempts to bridge these two worlds together secretly, but later seen as a threat to the planners as they are too arrogant.
The world view of the movie maker was so extremely portrayed – the world has only 2 rigidly different societies which only hundreds storey apart yet they did not manage to live mutually in respect to each other. The rich become richer, and the poor become poorer. This leads to the question of what is a society as we understand it and could it really happen in future? Or is it happening now?
But the movie never tells how did it happen?
Le Corbusier’s planning for the future suggests designing buildings or cities in according to the demands for the modern life. This approach is a bottom-up strategy, to fulfill society needs – but modern needs. In real situation, perhaps the building in future will control humans, and it would later invert the overall process into a top-down strategy. People have to live in accord to the building demands them to be. According to Alexander, development should be gradual and organic, almost of their own accord. According to Brolin, modern planning is solely the result of modern architect’s assumption of society – how people live, how they should live and their own personal values.
This movie perhaps tries to answer the question of modernists, through more extreme possibilities and reasoning for modern planning in future. This will happen when modern approach failed to obey society, which emphasized too much on functions and productivity eventually overpowered the human value of living. The director tried to portray the scenarios through symbolisms such as:
The planners’ city is the buildings high above ground, while the workers’ city is high below the ground;
· Dehumanized workers to portray the misery and sorrow;
· The building is a smaller scale of a country, and the city is a smaller scale of the world.
What have I learnt?
High buildings make people crazy. There is no genuine advantages for high-rise buildings, accept for the banks and lands owners. They destroy townscape and kill social life, other than damaging the light and air view. The higher people live off the ground, the more likely are they to suffer mental illness.
(Summarized from A Pattern Language)
The movie suggests if a building is a machine, to work in, to live in, what will the entire city be?
Buildings will become more important than humans, and humans will try their best to keep the buildings running despite of their lives will be taken away during the process. In macro level, the accumulation of these machines could be disastrous. The movie itself portrays the entire Metropolis collapsed after the workers destroyed the “heart” in a strike. This may seems too literal to portray, but the important idea is humans could not be rigidly controlled by what is designed for them.
The movie Metropolis is not the real situation of today’s life. It is not really happening. But into some degree, it is true in the sense of people of the higher position is in control of the people below. Perhaps we could relate the characters to today’s politicians, who have the power to decide undemocratically. They tend to tell people what they must do, and the people tend to adapt, whether the things are good or not.
In designing high-rise buildings, humanity should be the main concern – which is the ‘heart’ which mediates the ‘muscle’ (workers) and the ‘brain’ (planners).
Therefore, a building could not be a machine. It should be humanized.
No comments:
Post a Comment