Across the four separate zones in Metropolis, each group of human beings and robots is associated with its given responsibility and zone. Whether one resides at ground level or underground, his/her or its ability to function normally is restricted to what is most appropriate to that zone. Signs of cultural and ethnic display are strictly represented in underground world, also known as Zone 1. With careful note to detail in various scenes shot in Zone 1, the presence and wide array of ethnic food vendors are seen only in the underground portions of Metropolis. The signs over restaurants and retail stores are displayed in different languages but again, only in the underground zones. Because cultural and ethnic representation are considered normal and associated strictly to Zone 1, its line of normality is distinguished and separated from the zones above. Thus to say that one zone is any more normal than another zone is difficult, mostly because all aspects of normality are merely in one’s perspective.
Often times, the elite and influential leaders who have access to wealth and power determine what counts as normal in the film. The result of this set-up normality that goes across the different layers in the city of Metropolis is as mentioned before, nothing but a means of social stratification that separates not only humans and robots, but also humans from humans and or robots from robots. The underlying values that motivate Metropolis to pick out the most normal features are demonstrated in the upper well-lit and fast-paced district. In addition to the city’s vibrant color, its overall appearance is orderly and well put together. Everyone in the upper district seems to be hustling and bustling about regardless of whether or not they may have somewhere to go. The money and time that has gone into constructing such a grandiose public scene attribute to what the elitist class and its leaders would then vastly associate as normal. Given the public and private spaces and the socially stratified layers depicted throughout various scenes in director Rintaro’s Metropolis, a lot can be learned regarding one’s limited perception of normality. These limitations are the result of a lifestyle and zone he/she or it was born and raised in and what he/she or it is most familiar with. Beyond this limited outline of what is normal, who really enforces, gains or challenges the perception of normality? In the end Rintaro shows that the fall of Metropolis is the mark of a new beginning where the different cultures, ethnicities, and lifestyles collapse, mesh, and become one. It will only be matter of years before society can reconstruct itself, reformat, and again distinguish new zones.
(Figure 1)
In the opening scene of Rintaro’s Metropolis, much attention is paid to the elitist class amidst the extensive ziggurat celebrations. Above and beyond the upper district is the depiction of a wealthy and luxurious lifestyle that appears to be normal to the members of the elite and its peers. Robot waiters attend to the needs of the upper class, serving cocktails to the intermingling groups of human beings.
(Figure 2)
The robots’ tasks and responsibility are quite clear. They are intended to and function as servers that attend and wait on the human beings. Here is a clear example of economic stratification whereby one’s status and lifestyle is determined by wealth and influence.
Amidst all of the lively commotion and festivities, a robot marked with Zone 1 on its head is shot dead in front of the masses:
(Figure 3)
As mentioned repeatedly throughout the film, robots are never to be found outside of their designated assignment and or zone. A failure to meet this requirement results in immediate death that not only puts them in their proper place, but highlights and warns the masses that each person and or robot is strictly entitled to his/her or its zone. This is what best suits and is considered normal for him/her or it. Influential leaders such as the president and Duke Red dictate what the term and idea of normal is supposed to mean. It is only proper and normal for the highest level of Metropolis to be filled with the wealthiest people, with all robots attending to the requests and needs of the privileged.
The upper district and the most primary zone are portrayed as the most official or in other words, normal zone. Scenes taken in the upper district are not only accredited to normality by its brightness, but also by the structure and organization of the city’s bustling streets, the intricate architecture, the perfect alignment of taxi cabs as well as everyone’s well-suited attire.
(Figure 4)
Activity is always the same in the upper district with little or no distraction; thus, when a robot worker is surprisingly shot down for being out of place or zone, it is simply not enough to stop normal activity or start a revolution. The classification and distinction between human beings and robots at the upper level are quite clear and even accepted as a way of life or how things should be conducted and portrayed. In all of the upper public spaces, its members appear to have some destination and appear busy or occupied, unlike in the underground zones. Just below, food handouts and proper education for schoolchildren are no longer given nor supported due to the massive ziggurat celebrations. It is then normal to think that opportunity funded by those in power can only be achieved in the well-lit and fast-moving society known as the upper district; however, the upper district is a huge open and shared public space, where viewers and individuals in lower levels do not know anything regarding members of the upper district and their private lives at home. Things may appear to be quite normal on the outside, but that is all the audience encounters and is limited to throughout the course of the film.
Signs of cultural and ethnic association and or stratification are regularly displayed in almost all of the underground areas marked with Zone 1. It is clearly perceived how different one level is from another. The Latin quarters marked with the only real source of light, the sign Latin represents and recognizes the Latin community and its influence.
(Figure 5)
Later and again in Zone 1, a sign that reads Zapatería displays cultural influence as well. Signs of culture may appear completely out of place and in no way normal to those residing in the upper district; however, such influences are a way of life and are considered normal to its residents underground. In some of the better-lit scenes in Zone 1, various food carts and vendors of mostly Asian culture are represented.
(Figure 6)
Human beings and robots alike are seen hustling and bustling about where various ethnic foods are prepared and sold; however, it cannot be said that the busyness portrayed in the scenes here come close to the busyness in the upper districts. It appears that the streets lined with various types of food carts lack an appealing or more organized structure of life that is vividly seen above. Cultural and ethnic infusion is normal to its human and android residents below, and they are not aware of such cultural and ethnic stratification. It is interesting to see that aspects of culture and ethnicity are strictly associated with the lower and darker levels.
Following the death or destruction of android D-RP-DM497-3-C also known as Pero, Kenichi’s uncle, the Japanese detective wanders into a bar in Zone 1 where he is met with a disparity of culture. The bartender responds to the detective’s request for hot sake with its closest equivalent, whiskey:
(Figure 7)
Sipping on a hot cup of sake following a very stressful event cannot be compared to a glass of whiskey or gin. Beyond this minor cultural distinction, what appears so commonplace and normal in the eyes of the detective and that of the bartender are very distinct. Normality then lies in what a person is most familiar with and further, how an android is constructed and programmed. For ordinary robots such as Fifi, its intended role and responsibility within society are challenged. Fifi goes beyond its programming and beyond what is or should be normal for a normally functioning Zone 1 robot. It shows an unprecedented kind of concern and love for its newfound friends, Tima and Kenichi.
(Figure 8)
The friendly Fifi also sacrifices its life for the sake of its newfound friends. The standard rules of normality in terms of expectation and performance are disrupted at every level.
Theorist Michael Warner’s issue of normality in his work, The Trouble with Normal is primarily associated with the normal perceptions of sex within mass culture. Though the question of sex is quite different from the question of what is normal for human beings and robots at each stratified level in the city of Metropolis, much can be derived from his arguments that have almost the same idea. Warner starts by saying that “All too commonly, people think not only that their own way of living is right, but that it should be everyone else’s moral standard as well. They don’t imagine that sexual variance can be consistent with morality. And they think that anyone who disagrees with their version of morality must be a fuzzy relativist” (Warner, 4). This one-sided and single-minded approach to what fits as the moral standard not only fails to disregard any cultural or social variance, but also highlights this way of thinking as strictly relativist. Again speaking about sex, Warner provides that “Sex is understood to be as various as the people who have it. It is not required to be tidy, normal, uniform, or authorized by the government. This kind of culture is often denounced as relativist, self-indulgent, or merely libertine. In fact, it has its own norms, its own way of keeping people in line” (Warner, 35). A culture void of variance is one of deep and isolated shame that may involve silent inequalities, unintended effects of isolation, and the lack of public access (Warner, 7). Shame and or failing to be normal has kept many individuals from Zone 1 apart from the open, popular, and more explicit public and normal spaces of the uppermost district of Metropolis.
It seems that the reoccurring problem in Rintaro’s Metropolis is that “Nearly everyone, it seems, wants to be normal. And who can blame them, if the alternative is being abnormal, or deviant, or not being one of the rest of us? Put in those terms, there doesn’t seem to be a choice at all… Of course people want individuality as well, but they want their individuality to be the normal kind, and given the choice between the two they will take normal. But what exactly is normal?” (Warner, 53). Whether one lives and functions alongside members of the upper district or with those belonging to and residing in Zone 1, the essential requirements of life (i.e. eating, drinking, working) are comparable, though executed quite differently. In light of normality, Warner claims and sums up the idea, “Moreover, to be fully normal is, strictly speaking, impossible. Everyone deviates from the norm in some way. Even if one belongs to the statistical majority in age group, race, height, weight, frequency of orgasm, gender of sexual partners, and annual income, then simply by virtue of this unlikely combination of normalcies one’s profile would already depart form the norm” (Warner, 54-55). Differences or variations from one human-to-human, human-to-robot, or robot-to-robot are not enough to determine and conclude with one type of standard normality.
The grand city of Metropolis is one huge hierarchy of social and class standing, as each of the levels are as mentioned before, culturally and ethnically stratified. Warner argues, in his own approach to sex, “And although this tension is felt across the entire movement, it also creates a tendency to sort people by greater or lesser degrees of privilege. A hierarchy emerges… In the right social quarters, if you behave yourself, you can have a decent life as a normal homo – at least, up to a point. Those with the biggest fig leaves stand, always, at the top of the hierarchy. The only price they pay is the price of contradiction” (Warner, 40). Many culturally stratified individuals from Zone 1 and below have limited options and access to the benefits reaped from the upper normal districts. In the scene prior to the protests shadowed by a revolution, unofficial leader Atlas tells Kenichi that much of the poor residing in Zone 1 no longer receive food handouts nor proper education for the children. Warner suggests, “Because some such tension is structural to the politics of stigmatized groups, we might think that it will just never go away, and we should resign ourselves to it, rather than try to resolve these perpetual differences of perspective” (Warner, 44). This stands contrary to Metropolis’ own account and fatal end. The renowned city of Metropolis collapses, destroying and enmeshing all of the zones and leaving nothing but rubble.
Zones of normality cease to be stratified and no longer exist. The grandiose city of Metropolis will soon be rebuilt with new layers and sub-layers; however, these zones may or may not reflect its once divided configuration. The primary difference is that its members now adhere to the hope and future of Metropolis. The physical ruin and meshing of the four distinct zones resemble the ruin and meshing of what was once considered normal in each zone. The beautiful and colorful collapse of Metropolis’ many layers and sub-layers is a fantasy of the film. Various divisions between public and private spaces and between robots and human beings are acknowledged in the vast underground and upper quarters of Metropolis, promoting a more shared public space and world. The elite, middle class, and Zone 1 inhabitants soon discover that the intermingling of culturally and ethnically stratified levels is its own way of transforming oneself or itself in order to contribute to a more commonly accessible world. As Warner puts it, “promote queer sexual culture” just as one would promote not only diversity, but also what effectively fails to be normal.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Metropolis. Dir. Rintaro. Perf. Kei Kobayashi, Yuka Imoto, Kôki Okada, and Tarô Ishida. Columbia Tristar Home Entertainment, 2002. Film.
2. Warner, Michael. The Trouble with Normal. New York: The Free Press, 1999. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment