DIY History | Transcribe | Hevelin Fanzines | Metropolis, v. 1, issue 1, 1939

Transcribe
Translate

Metropolis, v. 1, issue 1, 1939

Page 6

RAY DOUGLAS BRADBURY: This was the first time I saw Metropolis, and I assure you that it gave me one of the most entertaining scientifictional evenings I've had in over a year. I laughed 'til I sprang a leak in my lung. Compared with things to come, I would, at first, give my all for the Wells epicomposition, but, after spinning it around in my mind I suddenly realized that METROPOLIS was just as good, even though it was dated. I really didn't know exactly what to expect when I went to see it. I had heard garbled tales of its super-super photography, etc, but it burst on me like a bombshell, and a rather humorous one at that. And since I had hardly any expectations I was neither disappointed or overly elated. The acting was----as is always with pictures made in them thar days--a bit of Armour's Star. (ham) The plot was moth-eaten. The directing, well, it could have been better. But, the best part, was the photography. I believe, without a doubt, that one of the most interesting scienti-scenes that was ever taken was the one where the girl Maria, has her personality and physical beauty transferred to that of the female automaton. Science was poor. But now that the evening is part of misted memory I have forgotten most of the funny things, thank heaven, and only the good things remain. METROPOLIS is indeed well worth my money any day.

MOROJO: This was the firstime I'd seen METROPOLIS. I thot it was wonderful, considering it was the first of its kind & was produced over 13 yrs ago. Naturaly, it can't compare with more recent spectacles such as Things to Come because they have the advantage of yrs of experience in production & acting. Even so, the sets were magnificent. The camera perspectives were very impressive. In spite of what some say about the horrible acting I thot it was good. It seemed very much overdone compared to what we have today, true; but when we consider everything had to b conveyd by pantomine & facial expression without the assistance of speech...we must admit it was well done. The girl played her 2 parts perfectly: She was a s.y.f. & a vicious robot, if that wasn't good acting what woud U call it. The boy very successfully exprest all the joys & sorrows, hopes & fears & frustrations which he was sposed to experience. The cast put the ideas over so there was little dout at any time as to just what was going on. I have been hoping for yrs for a chance to see METROPOLIS. I definitely was NOT disappointed in what I saw; but what I heard--! The wise-cracking of one who sat directly in front of me (figure it out for yourself, Ray; tho I shan't say which Ray--there r 3 in the LA Leag), the ribald lafter & general uproar, even audible comicomment by the local disciple of dignity... What uncomplimentary conclusion is to b deduced from the fact it was a considerably quieter crowd the 2d nite I saw METROPOLIS & the audience was practicly devoid of stfans?!

POGO: Metropolis was super-fine. The fotografy was perfect--the acting over-done--& the story rotton--but nevertheless, I enjoyed every minute of its showing.

MRS ALLIS KERLAY: The "Metropolis" revival was a real treat & thrill to me. I had seen the picture before during a brief visit to the States (from the Dominion of Canada,  then my home). This was in 1927. For Quay, mon mari, my--"how you say?"--ha, ha--my 'usban', it was the first seeing. He is not a science fiction enthusiast, helas ("but he's My Man!"), & tho' I know he would rather see a Folies Bergere, he would say he considered "our" picture a remarkable production. I must admit "Things to Come" is the superior picture, but I liked "Metropolitan Sta--, pardon--"Metropolis"! better than "just imagine" or any of the other future-films. Sans doute, a dozen years from now they'll make one greater that even "Things to Come", but I'll

Saving...

RAY DOUGLAS BRADBURY: This was the first time I saw Metropolis, and I assure you that it gave me one of the most entertaining scientifictional evenings I've had in over a year. I laughed 'til I sprang a leak in my lung. Compared with things to come, I would, at first, give my all for the Wells epicomposition, but, after spinning it around in my mind I suddenly realized that METROPOLIS was just as good, even though it was dated. I really didn't know exactly what to expect when I went to see it. I had heard garbled tales of its super-super photography, etc, but it burst on me like a bombshell, and a rather humorous one at that. And since I had hardly any expectations I was neither disappointed or overly elated. The acting was----as is always with pictures made in them thar days--a bit of Armour's Star. (ham) The plot was moth-eaten. The directing, well, it could have been better. But, the best part, was the photography. I believe, without a doubt, that one of the most interesting scienti-scenes that was ever taken was the one where the girl Maria, has her personality and physical beauty transferred to that of the female automaton. Science was poor. But now that the evening is part of misted memory I have forgotten most of the funny things, thank heaven, and only the good things remain. METROPOLIS is indeed well worth my money any day. MOROJO: This was the firstime I'd seen METROPOLIS. I thot it was wonderful, considering it was the first of its kind & was produced over 13 yrs ago. Naturaly, it can't compare with more recent spectacles such as Things to Come because they have the advantage of yrs of experience in production & acting. Even so, the sets were magnificent. The camera perspectives were very impressive. In spite of what some say about the horrible acting I thot it was good. It seemed very much overdone compared to what we have today, true; but when we consider everything had to b conveyd by pantomine & facial expression without the assistance of speech...we must admit it was well done. The girl played her 2 parts perfectly: She was a s.y.f. & a vicious robot, if that wasn't good acting what woud U call it. The boy very successfully exprest all the joys & sorrows, hopes & fears & frustrations which he was sposed to experience. The cast put the ideas over so there was little dout at any time as to just what was going on. I have been hoping for yrs for a chance to see METROPOLIS. I definitely was NOT disappointed in what I saw; but what I heard--! The wise-cracking of one who sat directly in front of me (figure it out for yourself, Ray; tho I shan't say which Ray--there r 3 in the LA Leag), the ribald lafter & general uproar, even audible comicomment by the local disciple of dignity... What uncomplimentary conclusion is to b deduced from the fact it was a considerably quieter crowd the 2d nite I saw METROPOLIS & the audience was practicly devoid of stfans?! POGO: Metropolis was super-fine. The fotografy was perfect--the acting over-done--& the story rotton--but nevertheless, I enjoyed every minute of its showing. MRS ALLIS KERLAY: The "Metropolis" revival was a real treat & thrill to me. I had seen the picture before during a brief visit to the States (from the Dominion of Canada, then my home). This was in 1927. For Quay, mon mari, my--"how you say?"--ha, ha--my 'usban', it was the first seeing. He is not a science fiction enthusiast, helas ("but he's My Man!"), & tho' I know he would rather see a Folies Bergere, he would say he considered "our" picture a remarkable production. I must admit "Things to Come" is the superior picture, but I liked "Metropolitan Sta--, pardon--"Metropolis"! better than "just imagine" or any of the other future-films. Sans doute, a dozen years from now they'll make one greater that even "Things to Come", but I'll