M (1931) - Should Beckert Be Executed?

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!

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.

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