Both Fritz Lang’s Metropolis and George Orwell’s 1984 are influenced by their contexts to a great extent. Lang and Orwell use their context to reinforce values and attitudes represented in their texts as to express a dystopian concern for the threat of a primary power within an accelerated industrial world. These concerns are explored through a direct threat individualism. Metropolis provides an optimistic view that not all hope is lost and change can be made, 1984 provides a pessimistic view that places run by totalitarian governing powers have no chance of change. Orwell discusses the way that hatred leads to dehumanisation within a society where the governing powers indirectly manipulate the minds of its citizens. Through the thoughts of
…show more content…
For a socialist such as Orwell, class distinctions mean the existence of conflict and class struggle. In Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the few people who comprised the ruling class had a much higher standard of living than the masses, but in these nations, and in 1984, revolt was impossible. The use of control within the lives and minds of the paroles causes the act of rebellion to become virtually impossible. The possibility of rebellion is missed due to the large focus on trivial things. Winston believes that “if there is hope…it lies in the Paroles” and this idea is greatly represented in both texts. Both Lang and Orwell realize that all power to overrun the totalitarian regimes of their times and their fictional futuristic landscapes lies in the hands of the masses. However, while Lang has hope and represents that there is still hope in the masses Orwell believes that the dehumanization of the individual is too much that the masses have become unthinking and all hope is lost. “The Party taught” the Paroles that they “grew up in the gutters” and gave them little knowledge on political matters that “even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.” On the other hand, Lang represents how the masses can work together to bring together a …show more content…
Both texts discuss the dehumanization that comes from controlling Governments. George Orwell highlights Government methods of control and manipulation placed on societies and Fritz Lang demonstrates the great class struggle that comes with this implemented divide within society. However the two have very different messages. Lang demonstrates a hope and trust in mankind that all can be renewed if a problem is noticed and the masses come together to fight for equality however Orwell highlights a pessimistic view that an enforced dehumanization by a controlling Governing power will lead to a society that becomes unthinking, masses who will not rebel and the dehumanization of even those who
For a socialist such as Orwell, class distinctions mean the existence of conflict and class struggle. In Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the few people who comprised the ruling class had a much higher standard of living than the masses, but in these nations, and in 1984, revolt was impossible. The use of control within the lives and minds of the paroles causes the act of rebellion to become virtually impossible. The possibility of rebellion is missed due to the large focus on trivial things. Winston believes that “if there is hope…it lies in the Paroles” and this idea is greatly represented in both texts. Both Lang and Orwell realize that all power to overrun the totalitarian regimes of their times and their fictional futuristic landscapes lies in the hands of the masses. However, while Lang has hope and represents that there is still hope in the masses Orwell believes that the dehumanization of the individual is too much that the masses have become unthinking and all hope is lost. “The Party taught” the Paroles that they “grew up in the gutters” and gave them little knowledge on political matters that “even when they became discontented, as they sometimes did, their discontent led nowhere, because being without general ideas, they could only focus it on petty specific grievances. The larger evils invariably escaped their notice.” On the other hand, Lang represents how the masses can work together to bring together a …show more content…
Both texts discuss the dehumanization that comes from controlling Governments. George Orwell highlights Government methods of control and manipulation placed on societies and Fritz Lang demonstrates the great class struggle that comes with this implemented divide within society. However the two have very different messages. Lang demonstrates a hope and trust in mankind that all can be renewed if a problem is noticed and the masses come together to fight for equality however Orwell highlights a pessimistic view that an enforced dehumanization by a controlling Governing power will lead to a society that becomes unthinking, masses who will not rebel and the dehumanization of even those who