Scripts and Lattes

June 25, 2022

What would it take for you to sell your soul? Money? Success? Fame? A culmination of the three? Would you risk driving yourself to the edge of madness for someone you know you should not trust? The story has been told before; a character gets tempted by a sinister being and ends up on the wrong end of the deal. It is a bit of a gender bent story of Eve being tempted by the snake, but with a twist. While this project began with the idea of strictly and exclusively comparing three versions of the Doctor Faustus story, the final idea is a discussion of the three and how Faustian elements have seeped into modern media network shows from the early and mid-2000’s through 2021. The versions to be discussed are written by Johann Wolfgang van Goethe, Christopher Marlowe, and Thomas Mann.

Faustian themes in early 2000’s network media

Lost

From 2004 to 2010, the American Broadcast Company (ABC) aired the dramatic, science fiction, mystery series Lost. What started out as a story about plane crash survivors stranded on a mysterious island became a deeper, philosophical story about individual decisions and the long-term effects not only for the individual’s life, but the lives of those around them. Each person had their reasons for getting on the plane- from giving up a baby for adoption, to being an extradited fugitive. The series plays on humanity, character arcs, and their long and short-term decisions.

At the time of publishing, Sharon M. Kaye was an associate Philosophy professor at John Carroll University. In Lost and Philosophy, she introduces the show as a series that sinks its teeth into the audience and will not let go. This show was chosen for the discussion of Faustian themes for the metaphorical messages within the series. L.O.S.T. in Lost and Philosophy stands for Love, Origin, Survival, and Transformation. While certain parts of episodes play off like an anthology of short stories, the main story always comes back to the present. Professor Kaye asks the readers if they have ever been lost, and to remember how they felt when they were (Kaye 2010). That is what the island is- it is our lowest point. But it is also the point of transformation.

The idea of Faust, or Doctor Faustus is that a man willingly bargained with demon and sold his soul to the devil for decades of personal gain. Lost is Faustian by means of the characters who chose to remain on the island. The character named John Locke stayed to protect the island, the character Rose Nadler and her husband Bernard choose to stay on the island so she can live. Both Lost and the stories of Faustus have elements of dark magic. Where Faustus sold his soul in the beginning of the story and is granted his version of success, Rose, John, and the rest of the characters that choose to stay created the bargain from that point on. John was confined to a wheelchair before his trip to the island, now he can walk. Rose had terminal cancer, but the island has made so that she is cancer free. All the characters- despite their reasons, came to the same conclusion: the island giveth, and the island can taketh away.

Criminal Minds

A crime procedural shows may seem surprising when discussing Faustian themes in popular culture, but the season seven episode “Snake Eyes” is about an Atlantic City in-debt gambler. In opposition of Faust, he is already married, but the gambling debt is causing a strain on the marriage. All he wants is to take his wife to Tahiti in hopes to rebuild the relationship. He

loses a poker game with a large buy in, and, in a rage, he kills the man he borrowed money from. After the murder, he finds a stroke of luck and wins a jackpot- but he soon realizes that the luck is conditional- murder equals a lucky strike. The more murders he commits, the more “luck” he gets. Although after killing a random gas station attendant and not having the luck, he realized there is another caveat to his situation: if the person means more to him, (such as his best friend) the jackpot of luck granted becomes bigger.

Akin to Thomas Mann’s version of Faust, the character is driven into madness (sans syphilis) by his quest for fortune. After his wife says she wants a divorce his spiral deepens. No longer in the right frame of mind, he decided the only way to keep his luck is to kill the one he loves the most- his wife. He finds her at her sister’s house and takes them hostage. He also blames the sisters for ruining his lucky streak. Though he is already “damned” for prison, he finally realizes what he has done and releases his wife. The episode differs from Doctor Faustus because he chooses suicide. His actions, however, damned him either way.

Supernatural

In 2005, The CW Television Network (formerly known as the WB) aired the supernatural mystery show Supernatural. It follows a pair of brothers, their friends, and acquaintances, as they save the world from beings with supernatural abilities. The Faustian elements are present throughout the series as characters- major and minor- are always making bargains with demons. The show depicts the condemned character being dragged away to Hell by invisible (to all but the condemned soul) creatures known as Hellhounds. The bodily death is violent if the soul resists. That idea by itself could be the difference between Goethe’s version and the versions written by Marlow and Mann.

The main characters had the bad habit of bartering with their own souls to save their family and friends. In an entertaining twist to the Faustian tale, the series manages to kill the personification of death twice. The original character of death was named as such, but the second one was a former reaper named Billie. Going forward, to make it easier for readers, they will be addressed so. The oldest brother, and one of the show’s protagonists, Dean seems to have made friends with Death. (Who knew cheap diner food was the key to befriending death?) The show tells us that Death was at one point a servant of Lucifer, so making a bargain with death is the same as bargaining with the devil. Death eventually escapes servitude but is still “Big Daddy Reaper” making his bargains death sentences if he wills them such. In the show, even as a villain, he is not truly a villain.

Supernatural makes a point to show all the recurring characters as neither fully good nor fully bad. Even the demon Crowley- “The King of Hell” sacrificed himself so the Winchesters could find their way back to their reality. The show’s introduction to Angels and God himself, is no exception. As the show progresses its heavenly storyline, the audience learns that like humans, we cannot trust half the angels on the planet or in Heaven. Castiel, even after all his indiscretions and internal misdirection, earned the trust of the Winchesters, who eventually considered the trench coated angel family. The point must be known that the angels are celestial beings that must be granted permission from the human vessel they wish to possess, before possessing them, which is different from the demons, as they can just hope into any body- living or dead.

The audience expects the demons to go against their word, but the angels are supposed to be “the good guys.” When Dean finally grants the Archangel Michael permission to use his vessel, he makes bargain that he expected to be held: “If we do this, it’s a onetime deal. I’m in

charge. You’re the engine, but I’m behind the wheel. Understand?” (“Let the Good Times Roll”) after which the archangel nods in agreement. Once Dean finished the task, Michael goes against his word and forces Dean’s conscious to hold him prisoner in his own body. Seems an oddly demonic thing to do for a heavenly being.

The final Faustian theme could be Faux Faustian. Giving your soul to God would imply to the devout that you are doing good for the world. Supernatural exercises the idea that God does not care; he is out to help his self. He will help you only if you are of use to him. The show portrays God as mostly selfish- even when his sister wanted more for the world, he locked her away and continued with his life, going as far as refusing to acknowledge her existence until he could not. Billie, the previously mentioned reaper-turned- Death often bargained the same way as God- and the way we expect the demons to- under false pretenses. By the time the brothers figure out the plans from either God or Death, it is too late to change the outcome.

Fantasy Island

The last show for discussion is a summary of the concept, and coverage of a single episode. In 2021 Fox Network aired the pilot episode of the contemporized the adventure, fantasy, drama series Fantasy Island. The show tells stories about people that have a fantasy they wish to fulfill, and travel to an island that claims to do just that. The island has rules though- you must play the fantasy out as it is to be or learn the lesson within the fantasy. In the pilot episode, this couple, of retirement age, come to the island to live out the fantasy of being young and healthy once again. Ruby, like Rose from Lost, is terminal. Because the island is magic, she is not terminal. If she were to leave the island, she would remain terminal. She was at peace with her diagnosis and willing to accept her fate. However, the guardian of the island takes a liking to her and her selfless personality. Roarke offers the option to stay on the island and aid the other

island goers. As she was going to die anyway, she and her husband agree that she should stay and help the island while he leaves. Because Ruby was terminal when she and Mel (her husband) booked the trip to a secret island that appears to you when you need it, it is acceptable that Mel goes back to their family with the news that she died peacefully on the island.

Though not as dark or grim as the original theme suggests, Fantasy Island shows its audience that a bargain, even one created for a selfless reason such being able to spend more time with a loved one for the sake of the loved one, does not always end the way you think. There is good in the bad and bad in the good- Life gives us shades of Gray and Black. It is our job to find our comfort shade.

The epic tale of Doctor Faustus

There is a copy of The Atlantic Monthly from 1858 that tells the legend of Doctor Faustus and the lesson it is meant to teach us. The entry goes on to say that Faustus’ journey is decidedly “the stamp of the great moral revolution of the time.” The story goes on to say that two saints were tempted with possessions and worldly prosperity and fell deeper into sin than Faustus himself. But repentance saved them. (Atlantic Monthly). While this legend is based off Christopher Marlowe’s Tragical History of Doctor Faustus, can we assume that Johann Wolfgang van Goethe came across this legend and got inspired to write his own version and give Faustus a different fate?

An academic may question whether Faust truly deserved to go to heaven even though he sold his soul. Damned to Heaven says this-

One of the most contentious debates in literary history revolves around the ending to Goethe's magnum opus, Faust. Some of the controversies have focused upon moral issues. Does Faust deserve to go to heaven? If so, is it because his striving accords with

God's notion of human existence as described in the play's prolog, his seeming regret at some of his deeds, or his larger plans at the end for the greater good of humanity? (Tantillo).

Where Goethe’s version shies away from the above legend is that it can be taken as a challenge to religion from science.

Faust [sic] ascension is meant to be read as an unhappy, tragic event. The tragedy, however, is not a moral one in the Christian sense. It is not that an evil, non-repentant man goes to heaven, thereby breaking a traditional, Christian moral codex. Instead, Goethe's scientific principles replace a Christian moral code within the play, and Faust's final end is tragic in that he is rendered incapable of further activity. In this sense, the play signals its ultra-modernity: a scientific, naturalistic understanding of the world replaces a religious one. Productive activity replaces moral rectitude as the goal of human striving (Tantillo).

The article goes on to justify Faust’s damnation as being condemned to an eternity of stasis. It is that stasis- inactivity- is more damning than eternal torment.

The previous paragraph brings forward another idea from the show Supernatural. If every soul that goes to heaven has ‘their own heaven’ it would make sense that Hell should also be based on individual torment. When considering heaven being broken up into the individual’s version of heaven without access to even a passed-on friend’s heaven, those of us that wish to, are left wondering how much of a blessing being sent to Heaven truly is. It is house arrest if you will. Going by this idea, Faust, as written by Goethe, was damned. Had he descended to Hell instead, he may have lived his afterlife in a constant state of doing and being which, he seems to prefer. A Meditation of Knowledge summarizes the legend as such-

The medieval legend, Doctor Faustus was a scholar who had come to the unhappy realization that his knowledge and pleasures were limited. To overcome the barriers that prevented him from enjoying the fruits so unjustly denied to him, Doctor Faustus struck a deal with the devil. Thus [sic] he obtained the vast powers he desired—but at a very dear price.

August 17, 2019

           Along with having a Zygoma that would make a cheese knife jealous, Benedict Cumberbatch marvelously portrays the fictitious, and often socially blind, detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and is brought up as one of the many iterations of Sherlock Holmes. Whether you prefer the serious only-time-for-fun-when-I-drank-to-much, Cumberbatch and Freeman as Sherlock and Watson respectively, or favor Robert Downey Jr. and his Watson, Jude Law’s more comical approach, you have seen at least one version of the duo represented on-screen that is different from their literary counterparts; Which is anything but surprising, as it is a series of shorts that were written in the 1880s. Some laugh at the idea that fan-made fiction is an artifact of pop culture, but every story is inspired by another story. Even the original stories are often based loosely, stiffly, or satirically around witnessed events. Fanfiction is a study in humanity, and it's social and historical developments. It also brings out creative thinking, individually and collectively.

What makes writing stories using Sir Arthur Doyle’s characters on a platform such as Wattpad (or Tumblr) less accepted than a BBC or Hollywood production? It does not matter where the source material comes from; the original idea will be spun into someone's inspiration. The amount of research and work that goes into a good fanfiction should be commended as well, as writers can spend hours researching methods or mental incapacities. Then again, "good" is a subjective term, and you can often tell when something isn’t thoroughly researched. Even with films, tv shows, and big, commercially marketed books, there is an argument over whether the story is good or bad. While some consider fan-written fiction lower than kitsch, being a mimic is a skill. Yes, some of the characters are already established, but the writer still created an original character- or characters- and plot ideas, which means the story already has a new element added and they now must create interactions with the pre-established characters without disrespecting the constitution of the original characters or their creator. Whether the original creator would accept the fans version of the story matters little, as both versions are the author’s head canon. As with any form of art, kitsch or not, it will enviably cause controversy.

Cumberbatch's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is the updated inspiration presented by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat. To be more relatable to a broader audience, Holmes, Watson, and Moriarty are younger, and electronically inclined but still clever enough to keep the “old-timers” interested. As times change, more ideas are allowed. The mental health of it all has developed as well; the more scientists learn about mental wellness and the human psyche, the more we can be algorithmic with how characters will or won’t react to different disorders. Sally Donovan calls Sherlock a freak, John Watson rolls with it, and Detective Lestrade sees Sherlock’s potential.

While there is little exploration as to why Downey Jr’s Sherlock Holmes is the way he is, looking at it from a psychological point of view, we can identify the adolescent issues that caused Cumberbatch’s Sherlock to have grown into the man he is. Nothing sums up young Sherlock’s development more than “the mind is inherently designed to understand life as a narrative.” (Borges, 1962) Even Sigmund Freud agrees that the psyche reshapes the conflicts revisited in narratives as a way to cope (Danesi, 2019). In Gatiss’ version, the Holmes brothers have a younger sister. She was closer to Sherlock’s age and began to feel ignored and jealous of Sherlock’s relationship with his best friend Victor, so she shoved Victor down a well and refused to tell them where he was. It is not until after she burned down the family home and is sent away that Sherlock rewrites his memories, forgetting his younger sister and making his childhood friend his childhood dog, (that never existed), Redbeard. At one-point, Mycroft tells Sherlock he is the man he is because of the memory of his sister.

The same events also lay the foundation for understanding Mycroft as well. The human psyche is a precious thing. Where Sherlock forgot his trauma, and his brain seems to have rewritten the way he reacts completely, Mycroft lives with the guilt of knowing what he did. He knew the Eurus was locked away and did not die in the house fire she set, as he told his family. Perhaps his internalization of emotions is how he lives with the guilt, like a self-inflicted punishment. The more you pay attention to Gatiss as Mycroft, the more you can tell he truly cares about his little brother, but he is afraid to look weak, so he instead acts like he does not and allows the hostility.

Inspirations grow with the times. More ideas are accepted, and technology is upgraded. While Cumberbatch’s Sherlock Holmes occasionally falls back into archaic tendencies, he uses modern technology such as keeping a blog and texting. Downey Jr. offers us the closer to the original version with telegram communications. Setting aside the Abominable Bride episode which is meant to take place in 1895- it is likely that if the two versions were to switch places, they would not be able to do their job as efficiently, if at all. They wouldn’t have the technology they know how to use; one would have the advanced tech while the other would think waiting for, or writing, a telegram is tedious.

When studying Pop Culture, we must recognize that linguistics and logistics have changed to sate modern speech and society. “The game is afoot” becomes “the game is on.” Texting and calling someone on their mobile phone became the new telegram and messenger correspondence. Phrases like “brother mine” and “blud” are granted between the Holmes brothers to show affection, even if it is sarcastic. There is a scene between Detective Inspector Lestrade and John Watson where Lestrade tells John that Sherlock is a great man and that maybe one day he will be a good one. (Moffat et al. 2010) Which implies that Sherlock is good at what he does, but not the kindest person. It is this scene that tells the viewers that if Sherlock were less talented but compassionate, he would be a good person.

The good man speech is alluded to in the third episode in the fourth series when Sherlock shows genuine concern for his brother and even addresses Lestrade by his correct first name, indicating character growth. That humanizing character growth is what gives Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock an appeal that Robert Downey Jr.’s version does not have. It also suggests that Cumberbatch’s Sherlock pays attention but chooses to goad their disdain deliberately, thereby making moments like that more precious.

What was it Carl Jung said about mischief? “In every person, there exists a predilection for puerile mischief.” (Dansei, 2019) So In a way, this incarnation of Sherlock Holmes is The Hero and The Trickster. He also has more than one form of the shadow he is dealing with- the shadow within himself, and the shadow that takes the form of cases and enemies. When considering Sherlock, a “trickster,” we must look past the usual villainy that is partnered with the mythology. His trickery comes from his lack or denial of social skills. In the second episode of the first series, The Blind Banker, Sherlock allows himself to be contradicted to move his case along. He also tends to use physically harmless manipulation when a case is involved. In that same episode, there is a scene with Molly Hooper that illustrates this action. Though non-cannon to Sir Conan Doyle’s original work, she is a specialist registrar, (intern), in the morgue at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital that Sherlock flirts with Molly to gain access to bodies in the morgue without having to go through official channels. He recognizes her affection for him and manipulates that. However, he has never intentionally been cruel to his tolerable affiliates. That is where he differs from the usual trickster mythologies.

When Mark Gatiss and Stephen Moffat created their version of Sherlock Holmes, it was not your twelve-year-old-girl-who-doesn’t-understand-the-dimensions-of-the-characters, fantasy. They cared about the characters and enjoyed the adventures of the detective so much growing up they wanted to create their own version., and that admiration demanded the creation of a beautifully magical world that transcends the archaic and challenges the archetypes. There are even liberties taken with John’s wife, Mary. As she does not have a detailed back story in the original work, she is probably the most natural character to build around. She could have been a ‘villain’ or ‘the wise old Oak’ that helps John in ways Sherlock can’t. Which takes us back to the role’s women play throughout history and anthropology.

Pop Culture can be considered an experiment and expression of postmodern democracy, and as with any other viewpoint, it is not shared universally (Dansei, 2019). This democracy and societal growth are evident in the way BBC’s Sherlock portrays Mary Watson as a strong, independent, and charismatic woman who enjoys the eccentricities of Sherlock Holmes. She even understood why he faked his death. Since the beginning, she has been in his corner and pushed the relationship between John and Sherlock to stay the same. It was not until later in the series that we find out why she is so accommodating. Where Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes shows us Mary Watson as ‘John’s soon-to-be-wife, who happens to be a governess,’ Sherlock shoves the progression in our faces.

Historically, women have been submissive; to be seen and not heard. 2009’s Sherlock Holmes movies played by Robert Downey Jr, there is the implication that women are second-class citizens and not often taken seriously, which allows the deception between Ms. Adler and Mr. Holmes. While she was using him for information, he was using her for creature comforts. It was not proper to openly discuss sexuality or lack thereof. The audience doesn’t even know how or when Sherlock Holmes met Irene Adler in this ideation. However, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat challenge their audiences with a polar opposite character in their version of Irene Adler. She is an open and marketed Dominatrix, which accepts that women can take charge of their own life. In the wake of movements like #HeforShe and #Mettoo, Laura Pulver gives us the power to challenge inequality and harassment.

As previously mentioned, Molly Hooper is a character of merit in the BBC world of Sherlock Holmes. However, there is no place for her in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s works. The idea of women being in a power position like that was outside of comprehension in the 1880s. There is some subjugation with Molly accepting the way Sherlock treats her, but she is smart and influential and respected. Her education in the medical field illustrates how society has grown.  Women can study more than the necessities for being “Susie Homemaker.” Molly is Sherlock’s access point to bodies and labs in the hospital. Her allowing him access to the hospital helps him solve the crimes without breaking more laws himself by breaking into the morgue. He will never admit it, but she helps keep him human and occasionally inspires ideas with her medical perspective. It also helps that she is not “a complete idiot.”  

While the drug use seems to be a staple in the Sherlock Holmes lore, Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock doesn’t drink eye drops to get high when he can’t find substance. He also isn’t trapping flies under a glass container and plucking the violin to observe their reactions. This version of Sherlock Holmes also portrays scientific advancement outside of women now contributing. It is mentioned in the show the Sherlock is a graduate chemist, and he is often seen appropriately using a microscope and slides when testing drops of blood and chemical compositions. There will always be new scientific methods and discoveries. The microscope and sterile slides are scientific improvements that were needed to help science move forward. The best science starts with a sterile environment. Sherlock even enjoys experiments with microwaves and refrigeration, implying that he is monitoring the viability of a subject in various temperatures, and the bacterial reactions as well. Though there were refrigeration units, the microwave experiments would not exist unless he was to first invent a unit to conduct and control microwaves.

Some of the experiments are used to solve current cases, while others are entertainment because he is bored. He is meticulous with his work and can even identify 140 different types of tobacco ash. Another thing that has grown with over the years is the knowledge of chemical reactions. The scientific advancements shown to audiences with any Sherlock Holmes variation seem to live with the memories of Sir Conan Doyle’s own growing up in the era of scientific change. Some, such as BBC’s version, highlight the advancements, some stay stagnant, but the impact is still there, whether it is a history in science lesson or scientific progress that inspires new ideas. Each version of Sherlock Holmes has a certain cleverness to it. New ideas in science, intelligent women, even annoyingly clever criminals. Every release is another piece of the puzzle, a collaborative art form that feeds on societal growth, innovation, and invention while somehow keeping our history present.

In general, Sherlock on the BBC gives more humanity and dimensions to the characters. Character building is a skill that many take for granted. World-building is two steps beyond that. But to take old-fashioned characters and throw them forward in history is taking that challenge and upping the ante. Both versions illustrate how much humankind has changed over the years, but also how we stayed the same. We’ve always been creative beings, and while Robert Downey Jr. was not afraid to don a dress and bonnet (which offered him anonymity as a woman), Cumberbatch takes a different approach to the “hide in plain sight” idea. Creative difference, but just as effective. Whether our creativity comes from something manmade or our own ingenuity, we never grow out of it, just develop it.

August 17, 2019

To compare 1927's Metropolis to 2015's Snowpiercer, seem like a stretch. After all, how can two movies decades apart, with entirely different film styles, relate to each other? Both deal with issues of class and poor working conditions for those considered lower class, and those of the lower class plan a revolt that ends up with more tragedy. While there are severe differences, the themes are the same, and the grittiness coincides with the subject matter. The most controversial idea of German director, Fritz Lang’s Metropolis, is the use of religious symbolic ideas to destroy the concept of a peace mediator. It also seems to utilize the woman as temptress mythology. At its core, Metropolis is a love story between a man and a woman with philosophy and equality intertwined, and while Snowpiercer does not shy away from displaying of the darkness of human mind, it is an ode to the survival of humanity.

In Metropolis, Gustav Frӧhlich plays Freder Fredersen, the son of the city master. He is part of the privileged and wealthy “high society” community of a futuristic gothic-dystopian metropolis. During one of his daily dalliances, he witnesses a woman showing school children how the “other half” live and becomes infatuated with her. Upon following her underground, he discovers the grueling lifestyle of the workers and the uncaring attitudes of the bosses. From there, he realizes the situation needs to change. When he goes to his father, played by Alfred Abel, he is told that is normal and protects the status quo. Unwilling to accept his father’s ideal, he goes on a journey to seek out change. During his second visit to the underground city, he finds Maria, (Brigitte Helm), the woman he was searching for. She was performing a sermon about the Tower of Babel that encouraged workers, not to revolt and instead wait for the Mediator to bring the people together. Freder’s father, Johann, ultimately decides he will not allow the classes to come together and does everything in his power, to distort Maria’s image. It is only after his plan backfires and the underground city is flooded causing all the workers to escape above ground with his son as their leader, that he realizes perhaps there is need of a peaceful resolution.

Snowpiercer, from Korean director Bong Joon-ho, runs away from the love story angle and instead gives us a philosophical tale. In a dystopian world set after the second ice age, runs a train called ‘Snowpiercer.’ The cars are separated by class distinction- most abundant in the front, poor in the back. Curtis Everett (portrayed by the illustrious Chris Evans) who has spent most of his adult life at the back end of the train, is tired of being witness to the injustice and inequality forced on all residence. He plans a revolt with a group of his friends and his mentor Gilliam, (John Hurt). The rebellion becomes easier when they kidnap the Minister of the train and use her as leverage to make their way to the engine car and overtake the train. This journey teaches Curtis what goes on. He learns precisely what is in those inedible gelatinous cubes they are fed, why the young children in the poor cars are taken, and how wastefully extravagant the luxurious cars are. The revolt is met with the train derailing and most of its occupants dying, but this spirit of the film lives on after the credits roll.

The two movies parallel each other with the implication that even though the high society residents are in charge, it is the lower-class citizens that hold the power. When they stop working the system crashes, the engine shuts down, and their civilization falls to into ruin. From the beginning, the audience is introduced to the idea that there will be a rebellion. Curtis’ first scene shows him counting the seconds between the doors closing and approximating how many people he can get through. He even risks getting shot for being disobedient to do so. Maria offers the indirect approach, preaching that faith in a resolution via a peace mediator will bring them their reward. She tries to teach the underground city residents that they are the hands that built the city so they will be rewarded in spirit so long as they have patience.

Where the movies differ is with who takes the first active step. With Metropolis, it is a member of the entitled upper class that had initially been blind to the neglect of the underground city dwellers that takes the first step. Upon his adventure down there, Freder sees a worker ready to pass out and tries to get him to take a break. When the worker informs Freder that the station must be tended every second, he takes over the shift. He discovered how mistreated they were but was still naïve about how hard they had to work to keep things running. Ten hours later, he is pleading to the higher power for the shift to end. On the Snowpiercer, Curtis is well aware of the hard labor he and his fellow back enders must commit to every day and has been working on a plan of action for years. So, one movie gives us a rare occasion when a “high society” wants to help the low class, and the other is a narrative of modern injustices.

Though both set in the future, the present mindset (for the era) is still there. In ­Metropolis the underground factory workers are men, leaving the women and children dependent on them and above ground, it is implied that the women are used as tools of pleasure and to teach the children whereas Snowpiercer is teetering mindsets. It provokes the idea that history is bound to repeat itself.  The society must rebuild itself but uses the “weaker” party as workforce because they are less likely to resist if they do not agree. However, as the cars get more luxurious, we see how the woman are just as powerful as the men, and the children of the rich spend their days with academics rather than in sweatshops. The children at the back end of the train are treated in ways reminiscent of child labor factories.

Curtis Everett and Android Maria are the same only in terms of encouraging the rebellion. Both use the respect they have from the people to throw the plan into action, but Curtis did not deceive his disciples in the way it is implied Maria did. They knew the plan from the beginning and even knew that it might not work. But Android Maria corrupted True Maria’s platform by poisoning the minds of the townsfolk and letting them think they could take control. Both “top dogs,” Wilford and Johann allow the plans to happen following the “let them do wrong, so it is justified when I punish them” idea, which could imply that they were expecting a revolt to happen eventually.

July 14, 2019

It is often laughed at to consider old movies relevant in today’s society, but that can hardly be said of Charlie Chaplin’s work. Let’s discuss one. The Internet Movie Database defines 1936’s Modern Times as “The Tramp struggles to live in modern industrial society with the help of a young homeless woman.” However, there is more to the silent movie. To say someone is having difficulty adjusting is the bare bones of the idea, just as to say she is homeless is giving her the brush off. Why is she homeless? Why is “The Tramp” struggling to adjust in the industrial society, what happened to him? By IMDb’s definition, we are only getting half the story. However, in this instance, it feels like half the story makes the investigation into the bigger picture more fun.

While Mr. Chaplin as factory worker role offers his audience a rather eccentric fluidity to the example of how big factory companies pushed their workers into hard labor, Modern Times illustrates how repetitive and menial work affects the workers. Hard labor with little breaks-- the ol' "time is money" adage comes to mind. Which brings forward our next topic: How into finding “the next big thing” companies were even back then. Trying to invent a machine that is supposed to increase workers’ productivity by taking away their already minimal breaks. Times also portrays to us, not only the way mental health care and after care were treated in the 1930's, but a what happens to the factories when the employees go on strike. 

Through a philosophical scope, the movie offers us insight into post-traumatic stress – back then considered Shell Shock-- and the different ways humanity does (or does not) cope with the differing types of loss. In the workers case, he lost his job because they considered him as having had a mental breakdown via his crazed destruction of the factory and sent him off to prison. Even though the “nose powder” scene inside the prison was likely done strictly for comedy purposes, it does highlight problems within the prison system-- like those of factory corporations. It could be implying that big companies treated their employees like prisoners.

Even after he got out of prison, he was struggling with life and went a bit haywire without the menial, robotic, repetition of either the hard factory labor or prison routine. He even tried to go back to prison by taking the blame for stealing a loaf of bread that the Gamin- the homeless woman- actually stole. She was what we modernly call a street vendor, selling handy consumer items to get cash. But her father was murdered, and her sisters taken to a children’s home which prompted her to start stealing. They found each other and squatted in places until they were offered jobs which got taken away because she was an escapee.