1931’s M, directed by Fritz Lang, was certainly a film ahead of its time. Released just four years after the groundbreaking American “talkie”, The Jazz Singer, M has enough complexity within its visual, audio, and story design to be compared with the best of modern cinema. What could’ve easily been a relatively simple tale about a city’s joint quest in hunting down a child murderer turns out to be a harrowing parable that dares to pose many difficult questions about justice, vigilantism, mob mentality, and humanity. Even today, with all of our confidence in how the legal system works, this German film shines as an eye-opening experience not to be ignored or missed.
The film starts out grimly by showing the serial killer, hidden from frame except for his shadow, meeting his newest victim, a little girl, on the streets of Berlin. We hear that the death of this girl is just one of the many that have come from the hands of this murderer, who seems to specifically target child for some reason. This most recent death, however, instigates an intense manhunt from all sides of the law. The police, led by Inspector Lohmann (played by Otto Wernicke) and under the pressure from the paranoid public, conduct state of the art methods for catching this killer, like handwriting analysis and fingerprinting. They also frequently raid seedy establishments and check all the patrons for previous criminal activity. The citizens themselves, caught up in the hysteria of this murder spree, begin to persecute individuals on the streets for merely talking to children that they don’t know. Even the crime lords of the city get involved; they begin to hire beggars on the streets to keep an eye out for the killer, since the police raids have prevented people from visiting their establishments.
There is a common theme within the film between these groups of people; even though they are all looking for the same guy, they are doing it for completely different reasons. The police get involved because it is their duty and they want to maintain the respect from the citizens. The people of Berlin volunteer because they seek retribution for the fear and paranoia that they have suffered through with this man’s existence. The criminals get involved simply for business reasons. While their collective goal is a noble one, they are all motivated by their own desires, not necessarily for the safety of others. This brings up interesting questions about morality and public justice; is everybody involved doing the right thing, or are they only escalating the hysteria and danger? How can justice be properly served by a large group of people, each with their own interpretation of how the assailant should be punished?
I find that questions like these are very relevant to a currently trending news topic: the Casey Anthony trial. Now I never really followed the trial myself, but apparently it has caught the attention of many Americans as it was covered ferociously by the news media. All I know about Casey Anthony is that she was a young mother who was arrested for killing her 2-year-old daughter and was later acquitted from this conviction, since the jury had reasonable doubt about the evidence used against her. This verdict sent many people into an outrage, since they thought that she was clearly guilty for the crimes. Anthony’s life was even thought to be in danger after the verdict, as numerous death threats were sent to her and her family (http://abcnews.go.com/US/casey-anthony-verdict-anthony-family-death-threats-wake/story?id=14004306).
Now you may have your own opinions about whether Anthony was guilty or not, that’s fine. But I do believe that the verdict should be respected. The jurors obviously deliberated thoughtfully about the evidence and the testimony, and they unanimously determined that there was no sufficient proof that Anthony committed the murder. Even though the verdict was not exactly a popular one, it still had gone through the correct legal process. We should not be allowed to act on our own emotional judgments in this matter, as it trivializes that rights for a fair trial given to us by the Constitution. We wouldn’t want these rights to be taken away from us, so why should we be allowed to take them away from others?
That’s why all this talk about death threats makes me sick. These people who are sending the threats have no personal connection to Anthony or the rest of her family; they are merely observers who received all of their information about the trial from news organizations. They didn’t see her do it, they don’t have any proof that she did it, and yet they are ready to deliver their own form of judgment against her. I believe that UCLA forensic psychiatrist Dr. Carole Lieberman says it best: “The main reason that people are reacting so strongly is that the media convicted Casey before the jury decided on the verdict…The public has been whipped up into this frenzy wanting revenge for this poor little adorable child. And because of the desire for revenge, they've been whipped up into a lynch mob.” (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/casey-anthony-verdict-outrage-spills-online/story?id=14002257)
I apologize for my little soapbox rant there, but it ties in very well with this discussion about the movie. Let’s compare Anthony to the serial killer in M, Hans Beckert, played brilliantly by Peter Lorre. Unlike Anthony, there is no doubt that Beckert is a murdering monster. We see him numerous times committing these acts and, later in the movie, he even admits to a large crowd that he has done these things, though subconsciously. But like the real-life trial, there seems to be a great schism as to how Beckert should receive the justice due to him. Should he be flat-out killed by the angry mob who have collected him, or should he be handed over to the police and be given a fair trial, under the possibility that he might receive a lighter sentence?
The climax of the movie (SPOILERS, by the way) is the kangaroo trial that the gangsters have set up for Beckert after they finally catch him. Beckert pleads to the people of the “court” that there is something mentally wrong with him and that he wants psychological help. This goes over poorly with the crowd gathered, who believe that the safest action to take is to kill him. They get even more outraged when the guy that they chose to defend Beckert ACTUALLY defends him, saying that he should be tried fairly by the court of law.
It seems to me that the crowd has completely forgotten the meaning of justice. They think that the purpose of justice is to punish, not to set an example for other potential offenders or to correct a societal or individual disorder. Instead of taking this man to the authorities so that they can study him and maybe try to help him, they demand the instant self-satisfaction of execution. That is a true problem with society; we seem to always demand revenge against a wrongdoer without even thinking about what it does to our own humanity. We believe that making this person pay for his crimes will somehow make everything better. But when Beckert finally has his fair trial, we hear the mother of one of his victims say that no matter what the verdict is, the damage has already been done. No matter how Beckert is punished, her child will never come back. So how should Beckert be treated, both as a criminal AND a human?
These themes of justice and vigilantism are punctuated very nicely with cinematography that rivals that of Citizen Kane, which was surprisingly made 10 years after M. We see close ups of the evidence against Beckert through an impersonal fixed camera shot. We see seamless transitions between the meetings of the police officers and the meetings of the gangsters, symbolizing that they are acting as one and the same. We see a mind-boggling long-take that crawls across tables, travels through windows, and twists all around, capturing the gangster’s organization of the neighborhood watch of beggars. We also see clever use of shadows, as the killer and the gangsters all visibly shroud the walls with their dark souls. This film truly belongs in the same class as the best constructed movies of all time.
And since this is one of the early “talkies”, I also have to mention the innovative sound design. Occasionally, we hear Beckert whistling “In the Hall of the Mountain King” as he walks around the city. This serves as Beckert’s leitmotif, a recurring musical technique commonly used in opera that distinguishes a particular character. I’ve read that this film is the first time a leitmotif has been used in motion pictures, and considering how much leitmotifs are used in pictures today, that is quite a landmark.
M is a masterful piece of art. Mind-blowing cinematography, innovative sound design, great, emotional acting, and a compelling, controversial story all make this film a true treat to watch. That is why I am proud to make this film my first 5-Star review. I’ve came close to giving a couple movies 5-Stars in the past, but ultimately chose not to because I felt that those films might not appeal to everybody. M, however, I believe that it can be appreciated by anybody, despite the fact that it is older, rather talky, and in a foreign language. It has an excellent story that could create some great discussions with the people you watch it with. Please, all of you, do yourselves a favor and check out M. That is all I ask of you.
Rating: 5 Stars
Distributed by Vereinigte Star-Film
Running time: 117 minutes
No comments:
Post a Comment