Looking forward to having a proper movie night after my
brief Skyrim-related hiatus, I settled down on my sofa the other night with a big
bowl of popcorn, switched the lights off and turned on the Blu-Ray player,
ready to witness the cinematic gem that was M.
Then, about a minute later, I had to get up again, turn the lights back on and
get back on my computer. You see, it turns out there are (at least) 2 versions
of this film; the original German version, and an English-dubbed version which
happens to have some re-shot footage. See, this is the kind of thing that
happens when I fail to do copious amounts of research on a film before I watch
it for the first time. Anyway, after a few minutes of searching, I couldn't find any majority decision with which was better, so I eventually settled for
the German version and got back to my scheduled vegetation.
At the moment, I am on a quest to try and conquer IMDb’s Top
250, a slightly questionable goal in hindsight, considering it is constantly
updated, but one I am compelled to complete nonetheless. Currently sitting at
#68 on said list (at time of writing) is M;
Fritz Lang’s film-noir classic, released in 1931 with a title which clearly didn't have ease of Google searching in mind. M was Lang’s attempt to re-establish himself as a good director
after the big-budget flop that was Metropolis,
the 1927 silent science fiction classic. Luckily, unlike Metropolis, M has not
suffered so much from bad film preservation or the cutting room floor and is
still more or less intact at approximately 110 minutes. The plot concerns a
child murderer (and possibly molester) played expertly by Peter Lorre, who is
terrorizing a German town, leaving the citizens paranoid and the police force
stretched to breaking point trying to follow the few leads they can find.
Annoyed by the heightened police activity and disgusted at the monstrous
behaviour of Lorre, a group of criminals decide to track down the murderer
themselves, utilising a vast network of beggars as their eyes and ears to
report any suspicious findings (Sherlock Holmes, anyone?).
Not to sound like a pretentious knob, but I have to say, I
think M has the best possible opening
it could have had. After the main title, we fade in to see a group of small
children singing a made-up song about the fabled murderer, before being
chastised for doing so by someone’s mother. Personally, I thought this opening
set the tone for the film perfectly, creating a dark, foreboding atmosphere and
establishing both the naivety/obliviousness of the children and the paranoia of
the adults, in particular the mothers; two elements which are very prominent
throughout the first act.
Warning! Spoilers Ahead!
Warning! Spoilers Ahead!
Gushing aside, the main thing I really want to discuss is
the mildly controversial ending. The murderer is identified as Hans Beckert,
who also happens to have been a former patient at a near-by asylum. Once he is
captured by the criminal underworld, he is held in a makeshift trial before the
rest of the criminals, who want to execute him for his heinous crimes.
Beckert’s defence is his mental illness, claiming in a rather powerful
monologue that he is compelled to commit his crimes, even though he doesn't want to, often even having no memory of committing the murders themselves. So,
of course, the question here is whether a man can be punished (or more to the
point, executed) for a crime he committed under mental instability rather than
freewill. My answer? Yes. Seems obvious really. A mentally ill criminal is much
more dangerous than a sane killer; at least a sane killer might be able to be
reasoned with, but a man continually committing crimes against his own free
will (it would seem) cannot. So, the right thing to do would be to detain the
perpetrator, and send them off to a mental hospital to be cured of their
ailment, and then hopefully released back into society as a changed man, which,
of course, is what happened to Beckert. But even after being released, he’s at
it again, so, what can you do with him? If treatment didn't work, and leaving
him to run amok in society murdering his way through every rosy-cheeked child
is both monstrous and out of the question, then really your only options are to
lock him up in a maximum security prison for life (which will devour tax payers
money) or, cutting out the middle man, execution. And with crimes as serious as
Beckert’s (child murder and paedophilia being two of the worst things a person
could do, in my eyes), then the solution should be even clearer, not to mention
more justified.
Obvious, right? But the weird thing is, the film seems to
imply, or at least suggest, that the opposite is true; that a man who is
mentally ill and committing crimes against his better judgment cannot be
punished for his actions, as they are not technically his own. This is initially
suggested by Beckert’s defence, but weirdly, the film appears to run with it,
subsequently painting the vengeful criminals as blood-thirsty scum who just
want to murder Beckert, rather than carry out that whole justice thing. To cap
it all off, the last scene features three women sitting on a bench in the
courthouse, supposedly just after Beckert’s death sentence (I would hope,
although the film is quite ambiguous about it; I suppose leaving it up to the
viewer to decide the most appropriate fate). One of these women says; “This
won’t bring back our children. We, too, should keep a closer watch on our
children.” This line then closes the film, fading out to black. This seems even
more perplexing, as it now seems Lang is trying to deflect even more blame from
Beckert and onto the mothers of the victims, suggesting that it’s the mothers
fault the children were taken. This also seems completely ridiculous, as a
mother certainly can’t keep a watchful eye on her children 24/7, and it
certainly isn't their fault if some murderer picks them off. This trend of
blaming other, non-deserving parties does seem slightly disturbing, and does pose
the question of what the true message of Lang’s film is. That it’s fine to be a
killer as long as you’re mentally ill? That everything that happens to a child
should be blamed on the mother? But in the end, I guess the counter question to
all this is “Who knows?” Or at least the slightly more (sickeningly) optimistic
statement “It’s your own interpretation.”
End of Spoilers.
End of Spoilers.
Dubious ending aside, there is a lot to like about M, and it is definitely worth a look
from anyone interested in film-noir or crime thrillers. I would normally go
into more detail on this, but a) this was intended as more of a summary of my
primary thoughts on the film, rather than a full-blown review, and b) this post
is long enough already. If you’re interested in this film, I should mention
that it probably won’t be to everyone’s taste; it’s rather slow paced and I
know not everyone likes subtitles/dubbing, so I’d recommend some preliminary
research to see if this is the right film for you. I can’t really decide on a
rating right now; either an 8 or 9 out of 10 for sure. So, on the theme of
questionable closing statements, it seems fitting to leave the score ambiguous.
But anyway, I've been rambling on for a while now, so I’ll leave it there for
today. Auf Wiedersehen, Internet!
M – 1931 – Fritz
Lang – German
Score: 8/9
Recommendation: Medium