Well that was an experience. The film is resplendent with modern themes, tech, some obvious (to me anyway) modern post production techniques.
Outside of the narrative, of which you would really need to see the film yourself to form your own opinions, there are lots of topics we discuss here.
Who knows what the true history of this film is. It is patiently obvious that this film is spliced together from many different sources, but it would probably be almost impossible to determine which the original is and which is later. In the version I have, the film begins with disclaimers which would stop you from thinking that much of the film is faked, see below. But to me in doing this, it only draws attention to the obvious fakery of much of it. The ‘found’ 16mm film (Buenos Aries, Argentina, Nazis?) is quite obviously filtered with a modern ‘retro’ filter, as the effect is exactly the same on each clip, which it would not be if the film was original, damaged etc.
Here’s some things in noticed, which have most probably been discussed before, here and on YouTube.
My own disclaimer: I am a photographer/ film maker and lecturer over 20 years’ experience. And whilst I do not claim to have all the answers, I do have some idea as to what I am looking at J
I have taken these clips directly from a 720p copy of the film in Adobe premiere.
The first few are intro slides setting up the ‘version’ of the film.
Ah, where have we seen these Victorian style tunnels before?
The Williamson Tunnels, Liverpool, UK. and others
Any significance as to the size of the workers feet below, that’s what stood out to me here.
What is this below? Ok, as the film progresses it is used as a gong, however a satellite dish in 1917?
More titles;
Early special effects, using mirrors,
how
But were these really models/ miniatures?
I wonder where the inspiration for the look of ‘The joker’ came from. Are these 2 different actors?
Here is the 1st ‘found’ piece of missing footage on the right,
You can clearly see the difference between the takes, from frames which follow each other. I would argue that the 2 ladies in the second clip, do not exist in the first… Either a different take, or a different time? Again, this is clearly an effect added in post. Watch how it is the same for each of these found clips.
Again above, following frames, the difference between the two clips, different children? Different take? Certainly a addition of contrast in the 2nd frame.
These 2 clips above, again following frames, different actors? Different take? The lighting is certainly different/ Look at the fountain, whatever it is in there, is clearly a different shape.
This wide shot above of the machine, whilst watching appears to be the same wide shot in normal time, but when studied frame b frame, it is clearly shot on different days, at slightly different angles, with entirely different lighting. These 2 clips 30 seconds apart. Could just be poor continuity.
Moloch, 2 frames apart. This is classic 2 shots in one, not bad for 1927 though.
There is around 5 seconds between these 2 shots above, which has the factory returning to the later style lighting and camera position.
In these 2 clips above, about 3 seconds apart, notice a few things moving around between them. I have highlighted them. Continuity or re shoot?
Metropolis courier? Mmmm, shouldn't that be 'Kurier' if we are in Germany? Again, found footage.
Where have we seen these tunnels before?.. Sets ? or real places?
Star fort/ tower?
Tower of Babel....
I could go on all day, every few seconds you could stop an analyse for continuity and all manner of things. You really need to view for yourselves.
In summary.
A complex movie, with complex themes and quite poor (even by 1927 standards) of continuity. It is quite obviously edited using multiple takes.
I do think in the video by UAP that changes can be explained to retakes slight camera movement and changing of props etc.
But, the quality and style of the cinematography and lighting varies greatly throughout, almost as is much of it was re shot at vastly different times, which is possible as it still happens now with films. This however, in my opinion is the greatest indicator that much of this was made at different times (Years between), using different technology, film stock, actors, choreographers and editors. The effect is far to repetitive and uniform on the 'found' clips to be anything other than added later.
Massive lighting changes between clips, of the same scene, a clear indicated of being shot at different times, however no DP in their right mind would allow for such drastic lighting changes between takes. Also set changes and use of multiple actors in my opinion, and the found scenes have certainly had effects applied to make them appear ‘old’. Does this mean this later editing has replaced/ taken out some aspects which were in the original? It is highly possible, however much of what I have evidence here could be explained away by poor film making of the time.
However, in my opinion, given that an overriding theme of this movie is deceit, perhaps like many of the topics discussed here, the truth is staring us in the face.
