My comments are on a mere 166 minute version: I think the cuts were probably towards the end as the final section was hurried in the version I saw. More than anything the film is dominated by crowds and the massive buildings- the Bourse and the Banque Universel's offices- where Saccard operates and Saccard's own enormous and fantastic house, a scene to show spectacles, not a home. Often one of the main characters is present in a crowd scene and it takes some time before we notice them emerging from the throng. Other shots look down at crowds in the Bourse scurrying as randomly and purposefully as ants. Saccard himself is described as a "peasant" and his enormous, solid belly, often shot from a low angle (had Welles seen this film when he made Citizen Kane or Touch of Evil?) dominates the film.
There are several people with different attitudes to money- Saccard, with a peasant's desire for increase and actual physical pleasure in its possession, the aviator/explorer Hamelin, who sees it as a tool for his projects, Saccard's ex-mistress, Baroness Sandorf, for whom it is something to gamble with and buy excitement and Saccard's nemesis, Gunderman, who is a curious character- does he represent and see money as a tool for stability or is he as atavistically greedy as Saccard himself under an upper-class cover? When he destroys Saccard is it because of the danger of Saccard's methods and his disruptive effect- as he tells Saccard- or for his own profit or both? At the end, Gunderman is triumphant- if he thinks in terms of triumph- Hamelin, blinded, is in the domestic care of his wife, no longer able to fly, Saccard companies are controlled by Gunderman, Saccard himself is gaoled, yet we know nothing of Gunderson's motives or driving forces, beyond a desire to play with his dogs and a desire for financial stability. Perhaps it is because Gunderman is played by Alfred Abel, Metropolis's master of the city, that our view of the character is distorted now. Meanwhile, though he may be gaoled, Saccard asks a warder "Do you want to be rich?" and the man enters his cell.
A surprisingly modern aspect is Hamelin's flight to Guiana- a publicity stunt which is made to directly affect the shares in Saccard's companies- Saccard has arranged that reports of Hamelin's disappearance will be released, enabling him to buy back more shares. The image of the company- the intangibles in modern terms- reflected in Hamelin's feat, is what is bought along with its shares, not any real value they may have. The other astonishing thing- like other silent films at the end of the silent era- is the camera work: I mentioned some of the other shots above, but there are countless others- cameras rushing through and around the scurrying crowds, an extraordinary party at Saccard's house to celebrate Hamelin's success that Saccard will use to try to seduce Hamelin's wife, where the cameras swoop over entertainers and guests in giddying virtuosity; the sheer enjoyment of what could be done with a camera and its part in narrative and commentary on what it shows comes over seventy years later.
There are several people with different attitudes to money- Saccard, with a peasant's desire for increase and actual physical pleasure in its possession, the aviator/explorer Hamelin, who sees it as a tool for his projects, Saccard's ex-mistress, Baroness Sandorf, for whom it is something to gamble with and buy excitement and Saccard's nemesis, Gunderman, who is a curious character- does he represent and see money as a tool for stability or is he as atavistically greedy as Saccard himself under an upper-class cover? When he destroys Saccard is it because of the danger of Saccard's methods and his disruptive effect- as he tells Saccard- or for his own profit or both? At the end, Gunderman is triumphant- if he thinks in terms of triumph- Hamelin, blinded, is in the domestic care of his wife, no longer able to fly, Saccard companies are controlled by Gunderman, Saccard himself is gaoled, yet we know nothing of Gunderson's motives or driving forces, beyond a desire to play with his dogs and a desire for financial stability. Perhaps it is because Gunderman is played by Alfred Abel, Metropolis's master of the city, that our view of the character is distorted now. Meanwhile, though he may be gaoled, Saccard asks a warder "Do you want to be rich?" and the man enters his cell.
A surprisingly modern aspect is Hamelin's flight to Guiana- a publicity stunt which is made to directly affect the shares in Saccard's companies- Saccard has arranged that reports of Hamelin's disappearance will be released, enabling him to buy back more shares. The image of the company- the intangibles in modern terms- reflected in Hamelin's feat, is what is bought along with its shares, not any real value they may have. The other astonishing thing- like other silent films at the end of the silent era- is the camera work: I mentioned some of the other shots above, but there are countless others- cameras rushing through and around the scurrying crowds, an extraordinary party at Saccard's house to celebrate Hamelin's success that Saccard will use to try to seduce Hamelin's wife, where the cameras swoop over entertainers and guests in giddying virtuosity; the sheer enjoyment of what could be done with a camera and its part in narrative and commentary on what it shows comes over seventy years later.