Fritz Lang's M -- What Makes This Movie Great? (Episode 159)
Vložit
- čas přidán 17. 10. 2022
- Sign up for my newsletter. CZcams channel updates, written reviews, and exclusive content -- free! -- eepurl.com/hbfI6v
Please follow me on Twitter for video releases and reviews: / drjoshmatthews
Letterboxd: letterboxd.com/joshmatthews/
Understanding Movies 101 Course: joshmatthews.org/learn-more-a...
The Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.org/what-makes-t...
Comprehensive List of the Great Movies Series: joshmatthews.org/what-makes-t...
Movie Cliches Series -- Video Playlist: • Why Pianos Transform C...
The Great Directors Series -- Playlist: • Werner Herzog's 10 Gre...
Shot for Shot Analyses: • Understanding Movies 1...
Great Science-Fiction Movie List: joshmatthews.org/great-scienc...
Other Movie Lists: joshmatthews.org/topics/movie...
Disclaimer: All reasonable comments are welcome, including reasoned disagreements. You will be banned for foolish talk, harassment, and hate speech on sight; it's a tremendous waste of life. I believe in freedom of association and, by extension, freedom of dissociation from you. - Krátké a kreslené filmy
The criminal underground may have had some sympathy for the mothers but their main reason for wanting to find the murderer was so the police would let up on the criminal element and they could go back to business.
Was going to write that, too, if you had not beaten me to it. Also, the criminal underground are murderers themselves.
Peter Lorre is fantastic in this. I don't think any other actor of that era (and not many of any era) could deliver such an effective plea in front of that kangaroo court. We know he is guilty but his torment is so real it actually makes you ponder. Incredible performance.
I saw some things in the movie somewhat differently as you described. The police weren't being "evil" and randomly looting people's goods, but it was their concentrated effort to catch the child predator, by assuming he'll be a "common criminal" as well, they went to the bars that are usually frequented by criminals. The police couldn't announce their upcoming inspection for obvious reasons, and the "loot" you saw in the movie was all stolen goods which the police confiscated. Also, it wasn't just the criminals that caught the predator, but it is shown that both the criminals and the police found leads to him independently using different methods. In the end, the law prevailed, but the mothers at the end weren't complaining about the law, but the fact that no matter whether he's in prison OR executed, neither option will bring their children back, so the outcome for the criminal is in a sense irrelevant to them.
Well stated. Both the police and the criminals have their own procedures, and the criminals are only one step ahead of the police, which finally track Beckert down in the end. Inspector Lohmann is an eminently qualified detective.
BINGO
This truly is an original film. I remember watching it two years ago and thinking that American films wouldn't touch topics like this or have this kind of focus on crime or explorations of evil and immorality for another fifteen years with the noir genre. I remember writing a review of this film where I said the concept of a child killer seemed so apropos to Germany, the land from which the Brothers Grimm and their dark fairy tales originated. And this film is a fairy tale of sorts--a monster who preys on children, stark and shadowy visuals evocative of a simple, yet foreboding nightmare, and a constant theme of children going off by themselves and being picked up by a stranger, similar to urban legends cautioning children to be careful of their surroundings and of other people. This isn't just a film about a child killer in Weimar Germany, nor about child killers in general--this is an unveiling of a great, unfathomable evil that exists in the hearts of some people, unseen, but no less deadly, and it's been here since humans were first created. It's a scary film because Hans Beckert isn't a horror movie monster who is immediately threatening, but a real man whose flesh hides the monster within, who walks the streets as any other person does, and hides in plain sight, committing his crimes in the dark where we never see him.
You are right that as great as this film is, the last fifteen minutes are what takes it beyond just an exciting thriller and into a fascinating psychological and societal study. First off, I don't know that I really buy Beckert's claims that he's compelled by some irresistible urge to do what he does--that he wants to do it, I don't doubt, but that he's merely a victim of his own mind and impulses is questionable. He doesn't just murder the children (and I'm sure he does other things with them the film felt wouldn't be necessary to detail)--he writes taunting letters, first to the police, then the press, claiming responsibility for the crimes and promising he would kill more children. Does his compulsion force him into those acts of pride, cruelty, and sadism as well? There's always been debate about what to do with those who harm children--not just those who've done it, but those who might, who want to, even if they say they never will. Do they suffer from that same compulsion? In my mind, there's no difference between what Beckert and men like him do and a rapist--they may have those desires, they may want to act on them, but they know doing so is wrong, that it's hurting someone, and when they commit those crimes, it is a choice that they made, influenced by those desires, but not subordinate to them. If we wouldn't excuse a rapist for his compulsion, why would we do so for Beckert?
I'm not entirely convinced of the "noble criminal" element in the film either. That the mob tracking Beckert down and capturing him is good, I won't deny. But should we think of them as the good guys? Consider that they didn't decide to do that until the murders started affecting them, when the police began cracking down on crime in general, breaking up meetings and arresting many of the criminals. Only then do the crime bosses sit down and decide the only thing that will get the police off their backs is capturing Beckert. Does intent matter in doing something good? Maybe not, but it doesn't make the person doing it commendable if their intent is selfish. The entire court scene is a battle of moral superiority, the mob saying, yes, we commit murder and arson and racketeering and theft, but we're not child killers, and Beckert saying that they commit those crimes out of convenience and laziness, while his crimes aren't by choice or some sort of moral laxity, but because of overwhelming urges that mitigate his culpability. Who is the greater criminal, whose sin is greater, is irrelevant to the issue--they're all criminals and all deserving of punishment. But that does lead to another great question: who should pass judgment? Who has the right, or the privilege, of standing in front of another man, listing his crimes, and determining what should be done with that man? Many people would say the courts of law hold exclusive jurisdiction to that, but where do the law and the government derive their authority? From the people, who have agreed to enter into a social contract, granting the government legitimacy in exchange for the government providing order, safety, stability, and everything else that society needs in order to function. I also do not know much about the Weimar government, only that it was weak and ineffective, and the film seems to portray the police in the same way. If the government cannot do what it has promised to do, if it cannot carry out its duties and protect the people who have placed their trust in it, are we justified in doing their work? It's a sort of anarchy that places a lot of faith in the judgment of the common man, and is man capable of judging fairly outside of institutional order and constraints? I don't think we are--I think each person follows what he thinks is right sometimes, but also what works out best for him, regardless of whether that conflicts with his own sense of morality. I don't think there is a perfect judge or a perfect system of judging, but the closest we can get to it is through institutions which combine the wisdom, experience, ideals, and reasoning of all men, both past and present. That won't guarantee a just and fair society, but I know that as bad as the United States government may be, I trust them a lot more than I would the mob--either organized crime or the unorganized populace.
I love Peter Lorre's performance in this film, I don't think he's ever been given anything as interesting to do and I always felt sad to see him as stock foreign villains when he turns up in Hollywood. I think the use of sound for an early sound film is incredible. The use of 'The Hall Of The Mountain King' when Lorre's character is taken over by his urges is such a brilliant, simple idea. One thing that struck me is the criminals only want rid of the murderer as the police are out in force looking for him, and it's impeding their schemes. I believe they also kill a night watchman during the raid and cause loads of damage, so Lang isn't portraying them in a favourable light, they are thugs themselves and aren't really about justice, their main motivations are to protect their earnings. I’m not sure if they’re almost a subconscious metaphor for the Nazis, it’s clear that Lang is under a lot of scrutiny at the time and did fall out with Goebbels over his next Mabuse film.
How love to hear any other good Peter Lorre recommendations, have managed little beyond The Maltese Falcon, Casablanca and 'The Black Cat - Tales Of Terror'
You've gotta see "Mad Love". Peter Lorre is genuinely frightening in this film. About a year ago Warner Archive put out a pristine bluray that was struck from a 4k scan of the original camera negative. Highly recommended! It's simply dripping with German expressionistic imagery.
PS: Excellent analysis of 'M'.
@@ontologicallysteve7765 - thanks a lot for the recommendation, will check it out. Sadly it's not out in the UK :-( How I envy you guys Criterion and Warner Archive.
I was under the impression that the inspector lied about the watchman dying to get the gang member to confess
I recommend The Man Who Knew Too Much, the original 1934 Hitchcock version (he did it again in the 50s with Jimmy Stewart), The Face Behind the Mask (1941), Crime and Punishment (1935), and especially Arsenic and Old Lace (1944) for really great performances from Peter Lorre. They should all be available in Britain, a couple are from Arrow and others are from [imprint] (Australian, I know but should be readily available in the old country).
@@brettcoster4781 - thanks a lot, will check them out
Definitely so far ahead of it’s time. I mean the concept of a serial killer wasn’t even acknowledged to exist until the late 70’s. Lang featuring a a complicated villain in his films isn’t new but to depict a killer in this way was groundbreaking
Lang's portrayal of the police was favourable to the Berlin police, it's just not as obvious to contemporary viewers. He includes a number of sequences that show organized methods of investigation and info management that weren't well known to the public in 1931 but we now take for granted. The police lead Lohmann is based on Ernst Gennat, whose creation and leadership of the Berlin homicide unit holds up well in the context of the history of policing.
M was probably the first "police procedural" movie as well as a great movie about a child killer. So many Scotland Yard, FBI etc movies have been done since but all relate back to M in one way or the other.
Fritz Lang is one of my favourite directors and M is one of my top 5 movies. Love it. Great video, thank you.
thank you, Leonard.
Lang's film noir SCARLET STREET would be an interesting subject for you! (It's ultimately moral in a SERIOUS way, not like facile Hollywood moralizing...)
@@Blaqjaqshellaq Yeah, I've seen that one multiple times too. It's really good!
Good job Josh! Lorre had that unforgettable countenance and carved-out a solid career with it!
yes, and voice, and ways of contorting his face!
Stone cold masterpiece. Lang's formal excellence and an amazing tour de force from Lorre.
One of my all-time favorite films! The print had to be restored, and I think every serious film fan should watch it!
According to one report, the hillside stranglers stopped Peter Lorre’s daughter in their guise of police officers, originally intending to make her a victim, but let her go when they found out who her father was.
I saw it for the first time just two days ago, I thought you had a video on it so seeing this pop up was a pleasant surprise. Great review.
Thank you, Darth.
It’s a great film. But you give the idea that the criminals are acting out of decency. In fact the police search for the murderer is making things hard for them to carry on committing crimes. So the murderer is a problem for them that they need to eliminate. They are doing good but for criminal reasons. A neat moral dilemma.
Absolutely agree.
I like the scene where he takes out a knife and uses it... to peel an orange!
Love this movie and Peter Lorre's performance. I watched it in the early 80's when I bought a VCR. Had watched Metropolis and wanted to see other Fritz Lang movies. This was the 2nd Lang movies I watched. Was glad to see on another website where they had multiple "great movies scenes" that Lorre's interrogation scene was included. Appreciate your review and the knowledgeable comments from others.
2:40 this slander to Herr Kommissar Lohman will not be tolerated! /s
For real, he makes a surprise appearance in 'the Testament of Dr. Mabuse' and has a much more prominent role. It's fun to watch both of these movies back to back as a result.
5:35 small issue, but the criminals' main concern is getting the cops off their back. Yeah, they obviously seem to care about the parents, but their stated motivation is to stop the killer so that the cops will stop raiding their bases and placing more pressure on their organization. So the fact that they are criminals isn't really all that hypocritical.
The German's early use of black and white film, making it Expressionistic and strangely beautiful, is always evident in Fritz Langs's films - even films like 'M', that don't use the extreme distortion of perspective usually seen in Exp. film. This was Lang's first sound film, which is interesting, and the first to have a 'theme' piece of music. As to the social/political 'message'; I think it's simply representative of the ever-increasing collaboration between criminal gangs and police, and the ineffectual Weimar government, which was being replaced and becoming less about 'democracy', and more about 'authoritarianism'. The psychology is interesting - can a psychopathic killer receive 'justice' - and what would that be? (Just as a footnote: Lang is said to have used the serial-killer, Peter Kurten, as one inspiration for Lorre's character.) Psychiatry was still a fairly new science, and in Germany, as well as in other countries, there was a lot of debate surrounding the death penalty. So, this film shows that tension - is a man responsible for urges and desires he cannot control, or is it a 'sickness'? And should such people be executed, or confined in a mental hospital? We're still wrestling with those questions.
8:03 I think this was where the movie suffered from being a film of it's time.
Having just come out of the silent era of films, there were many scenes of complete silence that would have benefited from music, which would have sold the mood and helped with the pacing.
I have watched the movie several times and it is obvious that the only reason the criminals start searching out the killer is because the police deliberately started harassing the criminal element. There was very little to nothing to suggest they were doing it for a desire to keep the community save. Likewise there is nothing historically to suggest the courts will not sentence Lorre to death. Germany had a death penalty at the time and used it. While there was little to show the average police officer as being above average, there was nothing to suggest they were corrupt.
Josh I would love to hear you talk about Alexander Payne’s Descendants
thanks. I will get there. Great movie.
eggers working on a remake/interpretation of nosferatu
Like most movies from that era, a lot of overacting, but still very good for it's time.
For me, his great monologue is insanely poignant. But all the pity, all the respect for him as a human being, all the questions about whether others are entitled to condemn people to ultimate punishments (be that death or long time or even life long imprisonment) don't change my disgust and neither my thirst for revenge nor my belief that society has to be protected from him. In the end my take-away is that everyone is a person and HAS to be seen that way, everybody is fallible and it can't be forgotten that even the most heinous people are still people and human and complex. And that the inalienable rights that one decides everybody should have have to be considered a lot, since him needing to be held in perpetuity means that freedom by itself can't be a basic right. Of course there is a big discussion to be had about this, but it's too much for this comment, now.
One of the very few things I'm almost proud about my nationality for is the first sentence in the German constitution: Human dignity is inviolable. And this movie illustrates one of the reasons for that.
The Fugitive? 🤨 I don’t see it.
I believe this movie was remade in the 50's in the US. It was controversial as I recall.
Yes. And it had the same producer as the original. ‘Pressburger’ was his name. I believe he also produced Peter Lorre’s only film (made in Germany) “Der Verlorene”… which actually featured a few of the actors found in “M”.
👉🏽M👈🏽
I can’t put myself in the camp of supporting the police in the movie. This video was posted a long time ago and I’m sure you’ve mulled it over once or twice since recording, but how would you make the argument to support them?
they are pursuing a child serial killer. A warlord of some sort has to stop that.
Interesting that you point out that there are not many characters but rather crowds.This is a big no-no in traditional screenwriting. If you want a mob of angry union workers, soldiers, or sports fans, you are supposed to choose two or three individuals and give them individuality. Is there any other movie where crowds are used in lieu of individual characters?
I am wondering exactly when the screenwriting rule you mentioned came about. It seems to me that crowds are a default feature in cinema for a good long while, certainly in the silents and at least up through those massive productions in the 1950s and early 60s.
Sir, I have no idea what you think. You vacillitate, and hem and haw, and maybe, so much, you never state an opinion. I always thought that when they made "M" they were actually dancing around the term "Child molester", not that a child murderer precludes them from also being a molester as well. Fritz Lang along with Kurosawa and John Huston were truly three of the very best film directors that have ever lived.
my opinion on what? You need to look up the definition of "hem and haw."
I understand it being amazing in theaters in the 30s but let’s be honest, this isn’t something we wanna watch today
this is better technically and imaginatively than 99% of all movies, still.
@@LearningaboutMovies What about the creativity and complexity that people like Nolan and Kubrick have in their films. I personally love films myself, and I could say movies like M were good for its time, but with the technology and creativity modern day film makers have such as Kubrick, PTA, Scorsese, etc., I find their films more entertaining and change my perspective on what a "great" movie should be.
There is a lot to M that is interesting. For example the police man is modeled after a famous police officer from the 20s, who modernized police work en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Gennat.